shewolf -- Frankly, I haven't had the time to sit and develop the notion. But, the old series, "Connections," inspired it. Did you ever see Connections? The author/host brought up things like the invention of the clock as a way of assuring that monks said the Divine Office in a timely manner. So many things were 'connected' to the Catholic Church that the notion of an alternate civilization in which Christ had failed seemed interesting. It would take a great deal of research to produce such a book.
The whole notion of religion is interesting. The success of the Roman Empire was partially due to their ability to conflate localized gods and goddesses -- like the Celtic Lug with Mercury -- with their own deities. The Catholic Church adopted this strategy, which is why Christmas is celebrated 25 December and why some former pagan deities turn up as Catholic saints, with all the attributes of the deity intact, like Saint Bridget.
However, the Roman also waged literal war against some religious groups, like their extermination of the British druids on the Isle of Mons (Anglesey) off the coast of Wales.
This sort of absorption on the one hand and anhilation on the other does leave the model for a non-Christian European religion(s) up in the air.
There is also the question of Islam. What form would Mohammed's vision have taken without Christ and the Bible? Would Islam have been a form of Judaism? Would it have resembled more closely the Arabic nature religion it replaced? Would it have conquered Europe?
For me - those who committed the crimes on nanking in china back in WWII.
Pragmatic
pragmatic wrote:For me - those who committed the crimes on nanking in china back in WWII.
Information for anyone not familiar with the Nanking was crimes:
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/NanjingMassacre/NMNJ.html
BBB
I vote for either don king or larry hagman
never liked don king's hairdo and i dont care who shot jr
Re: Pragmatic
Thank you bumblebeeboogie!! It was very inconsiderate of me to have failed to provide the necesary background info for a proper judgement. My apologies for all.
Re: Pragmatic
pragmatic wrote:
Thank you bumblebeeboogie!! It was very inconsiderate of me to have failed to provide the necesary background info for a proper judgement. My apologies for all.
At age 76, I've learned that the majority of young people know very little about history older than 30 years. One cannot assume that they know what we are talking about when an event in the first half of the 20th century in cited. It's an indication of the failures in our education system.
BBB
The guy who came up with the show dancing with the stars!
The person who came up with the BackYardigands and Barney. sorry kids, he's an overrated hasbeen.
Nobody.
But I woul gladly let people lern history well. After all if you erase some error in the past you can do some good, but if you let the people know the errors and this way avoid a lot error in the future.... you can do a lot more good, don't you?
Hitler.......
and if I could have 3 all up, the others would be
2.Pres Bush
3.Pres Mawgabe (if thats how its spelt)
...but there would always be others to take their place!
newton, so that maybe I would have had the chance to watch apples fall from trees and put two and two together
Sanctuary wrote:Bush.
Sorry folks, I sat here contemplating persons from Hitler to Jesus, from Mother Teresa to Heraclitus. Bush is the only one I truely feel personal angst towards (Hitler is a close second).
I hope you are kidding. If not you are truly sick.
Asherman wrote:I'm afraid that the only way you might "create a more peaceful world" by eliminating an individual would be to takeout the ancestor of us all.
Kudos, Asherman! An exceedingly wise insight! The problems of that ancestor have been passed on perennially; we have, if you will, a congenital disorder.
Asherman wrote:B,
I'm afraid that the only way you might "create a more peaceful world" by eliminating an individual would be to takeout the ancestor of us all. Even without human beings, the world is not a peaceful place. After all, the concept "peace", as opposed to struggle for existence, is human.
...Would our species really have been better off if survival had been less precarious? ... It might be argued that in the absence of struggle for territory and resource that we would still be nothing but reasonably clever hunters and gatherers. Why invent civilization if peace and plenty were perpetual?
Couldn't have set it down better. The other week or so someone commented on world peace and the such. I looked him in the eye (he only has one that seems focussed) and said 'Alan, war and fighting are constant. Have you ever taken notice that as soon as one country or person calms down and settles into a peaceful existence another picks up the weapon of choice and starts a new assault?' I went on to tell him that the bad part about all of this as time progresses is that weapons become more destructive and eliminate more and faster so eventually civilization as we know it will be completely obliterated at which time all remaining souls will be transferred to a new galaxy and get to start again.
Several people have said Hitler,but IMHO,thats a poor choice.
While I will be the first to admit that he was a monster,and his ideas almost destroyed the world,there were several good things that directly occurred due to him.
If WW2 had not occurred,then many modern medicines,created for battlefield use,would not have been created.
The UN,with all of its flaws,would not have come to be.
Space exploration has a foundation in WW2.
Nuclear power was harnessed during WW2.
So while he was responsible for the murder and deaths of millions,therre were some good things that occurred.
With an exercise like this,you have that old paradox...
If I go back in Time and kill my grandfather while he is a boy,then how could I have been born to go back in time?
You wanna wipe out an entire city of 700,000 people ? ! ? ! ?
What did Ohio ever do to you?
