No, what you did was cast aside its origin and claim it for Christianity. That you don't see a problem with that is the exact point I was making.
The only fact is that the
Weichnachtsbaum tradition surfaced in the 16th century. There is no direct link to the pagan traditions, but it might be possible there is a link of some sort. I know Wikipedia shouldn't be a source, but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree
Seriously I have to say from personal experience of working and travelling in the Middle East over a thirty year period, not to mention working directly with Muslims for many year, you have no idea of what you are talking about.
Are you seriously attempting to claim that not Muslim child from the Middle East has ever shouted at or insulted a parent?
No, I don't claim that. But the Pakistani children (my father visited Pakistan in the late 80's) didn't directly insult their parents. The parents were really worried about their children's political opinions, which were far more radical than theirs - a rebellion of a sort.
Except they don't, as most criminals simply so not take the penalties into account when they commit crimes. If they did those countries with the death penalty and forced labour would see lower levels of crime. The issue is that they don't.
Source -
http://www.prison.org/english/rpcr4.htm
Furthermore, the majority of those who committed crimes were either juveniles or under the influence of alcohol.
Drunk men don't clearly think what they are doing or what are the consequences. Also:
A further proportion of crimes in Russia--
You are using a source that consists
only of Russians' behaviour. To my experience, around half of the Russians keep their laws a joke (and to mention, there was plastic bags full of rubbish dumped everywhere) - they aren't pretty law-abiding because of their leaders' hundreds-of-years-old blatant arbitrariness. At least a lot of them have got into serious trouble in Finland trying to bribe police officers, or breaking speed limits or other traffic laws, because they don't "culturally understand" the meaning of anti-corruption or strict traffic laws.
But, if the majority of the crimes committed in that table is committed under the influence of alcohol, you can clearly see they can't have thought of the consequences. Now crimes like smuggling and organised theft (car theft isn't organised, it's often impulsive behaviour) are often planned and the risk is taken into account,along with the possible penalties.
I see I'm going to have to go back to the relevent verses:
[Genesis 1:27-30]
The word in question is Dominion.
Your taken that, converted it into Rule and then taken that and used the 'fluffiest' description of it you can.
No I haven't, you just keep reading the English translation. I used the Finnish translation (both the English and Finnish are translated from Greek I think, unless the English is translated from Latin), which uses a word that has that meaning (of looking after) too. Since the English translation is not the original version,
Dominion is just an interpretation of the word used in the Greek/Latin translation, which in turn uses an interpretation of the word used in Aramaic, which in turn uses an interpretation of the word used in Hebrew.
You don't seem to believe the English translation of the Bible has gone a long way from the original version, and that other languages' translations aren't made using the English translation. Hence what is in the English Bible might have a (slightly) different meaning in the Ancient Hebrew or Aramaic Bible.
Hate to break it to you, but you can have as many "other divine creatures" as you like, if you only have one God then you have a Monotheistic religion.
I meant that the Angels and Satan might have declined from (lesser) gods to just inferior divine creatures, while only Yahweh (as a creator and the most powerful) was finally considered a god.
The thing I'm most puzzled with Christianity/Judaism/Islam is Satan. Why would he exist as a divine creature, since God is pretty much omnipotent? Or is Satan just a personification for all the evil done? Having been said that he is a fallen angel, does that mean God doesn't have ultimate control over his most important servants?
The relationship between God and the other divine creatures is pretty obscure in the Abrahamic religions - sometimes I think the others are just metaphors for good and evil, while the Bible (being the only source in this matter) sometimes makes it hard to them as metaphors.
Polytheism is actually a fairly straightforward progression in almost all primitive civilizations, what can't be understood (particularly if it is of benefit or danger) is deified. Rains too much/not enough - something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Not enough Sunshine to ripen the crops - something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Mountain nearby starts smoking and spitting out fire something must be controlling it - quick give it an offering. Etc, etc, etc.
We have even seen examples of this as late as the 20th century with
cargo cults. Yet Polytheism can be traced back to the Neolithic era.
Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism
Monotheism (with a small number of exceptions) came much later and generally arose from the followers of a God rejecting the others in a Pantheon and becoming the one true god, with all the others being false. True monotheism came about before Judaism but well after Animism and Polytheism and as such is a much later development.
Your example of a German tribe is typical of a pantheon of gods, in which your 'local' god or a 'creator god' is seen as the best or most powerful, the difference is that unlike true Monotheism they still believe in the other gods. Just as Zeus was head of the Greek pantheon, yet the Greeks clearly believed in a pantheon.
So yes, given the historical context it is far more likely that a monotheistic religion came from a single god within a pantheon than simply springing into existence by itself.
Maybe, I can't disagree with your points.
Which is exactly my point, your saying that I shouldn't use BCE and CE, yet no reason for me not to exists.
Well, as long as BCE/BC and CE/AD mean the same, there is no problem. But if our culture falls, there might be a problem. However, it's not an acute issue.
My exact point. Every part of it (including the 10 commandments) was written down by men, nothing other than that has been proven.
We also know that its been re-written and interpreted by men over the years.
As such why should we trust any of it?
You don't have to. Except for the historical facts there are, of course.
Hey I'm not the one who has been banging on about the NT overruling the OT, that's been you. That you seem to be having a bit of mission creep about the degree of that is not my issue (I seem to recall you taking some issue with the 10 commandments a while ago - I will have to check however).
My point has consistently been that the bible is inconsistent and flawed.
Well, I don't disagree with the Ten Commandments, I didn't mean that. Just that they, for a sane person are in line with the Great Commandment™.
A flawed book it is, in the sense that it contradicts itself. But it doesn't make its ethics (apart from those which contradict the main rules) invalid.
And yes, I know religion isn't necessary to have a high level of ethics, but in the old times it was easier to incorporate it with religion and culture I suppose.
No sin starts at birth. Your books rules not mine.
That is said, yes. But I'm not that sure about it, well... what to say... maybe it means that we all are susceptible to trying to put ourselves always first, for example. That's how I see it.
---
Except the people who accept the evidence - and there's a lot of it. They're smarter on the topic than those make up history, ignore the evidence repeatedly presented to them, make up terms, repeatedly insist things that are not true, decry the entirety of objective knowledge as "worthless" (despite being alive thanks to it) and still pretend their opinion is somehow as valid a position as evidence.
Those latter people? They're very definitely wrong.Why?
But those latter people consist also of those who
believe in science.
Remember, you shouldn't believe in the Big Bang - there are just facts that make it the most likely way our universe as we know it came into being.
Science is about questioning, isn't it?
Socrates said that "I know that I know nothing".
It's up to belief into something if you want to form a complete view of world, but it shouldn't hinder the adaptation of new scientific facts. However, things like the Big Bang remain unproven, although highly likely, because they are something that has happened in the history, something we couldn't have observed. We may know the way such a happening most probably happened, but it doesn't necessarily have to have gone like that. That's also the reason why scientists don't silence the critics, because they agree they can't know it for sure, just that it is highly likely.
Well, because you'll be wasting a lot less time thinking the question "how" and be using your time better, don't you think?
Didn't we discuss this "why the universe exists" versus "how the universe came into existence" question quite a lot of pages earlier?
---
I'm not that sure how much sense my post makes after all, because I'm more than a bit tired after the Air Force trials I attended earlier today - I hope you get my points though.
