The two different types of Religions

[NotRob]

Warning: This is gonna be a multi-post argument.


I generalize alot. I know it. Its necessary otherwise I'd spend all my time explaining with additional detail. Don't nit-pick my argument as far as every last detail is concerned. As always, the normal rant/counter-argument is encouraged.

So I was sitting down in class and slowly getting lost in my own thoughts of "stuff" when I began to wonder Why were some religions spread by the sword and others a little more... in the background to the whole scope of things?

There were/are some religions that have fanatical devotees that feel its their mission to spread "the word" (type A) and others that just don't really try to convert others (in comparison)(type B).


Let's list examples:

Type A

European Christianity (years 0 - 1054)

Islam (years 660 - 1000)

Type B

Druidism

Celtic-ism

Hellenic Mythologies

Buddhism

Judaism

Norse Mythologies

Shintoism

Animism

Old School Idol-Worshipers

I purposefully left out Hinduism because it falls under both categories, depending on what time frame you're looking at. And because of its history, Confucianism is a little iffy too.




I realized that I'm gonna have to explain how religions come about to begin with, before I continue with my argument. Just keep an open mind about what's written above while you read the next post.

[NotRob]

Civilization really began once groups of hunter-gatherer peoples quit their nomadic lifestyles and stayed still. They stopped following herds of Elk and such once they came across places where they could easily get food within a comfortable radius of the settlement.

And thus was born the first city/town/collection-of-mud-huts

Lesson 1: Early humans were hunter-gatherers and those groups that settled down only did so because/when they could.

Lesson 2: When everyone in your clan (get it? har-har!) needs to hunt/skin/kill bigass Elk and Buffalo, or starve, there isn't much time for anyone to do anything else.


-Vocab word: Non-producer
----A non-producer is someone who's actions do not directly contribute to the material sustenance of their group.
----If you don't make food or shelter then you're a non-producer.


**This is the beginning of a complex society. Once food is plentiful enough that not everyone has to spend every waking hour looking for food, people began to do other things. The eldest-man/fiercest-hunter could sit on his ass and order people around (the beginnings of government!). Others could just sit and wonder about the natural world around them. (why is the sky blue? why does the wind blow? etc...) These ideas, and then convictions, became woven together to form a complex understanding/explanation of the world. This is where religion was born.**


In almost every (99.9%) early human settlement men did the hunting/fishing while women looked after children, prepared food (cook/preserve), gather fibers for nets, and when farming began they did that too.


"Woman! Git your ass back in that field!"


The difference between the primary tasks of the man versus the woman, was that men would do their thing and then after getting food they'd relax. They'd sharpen sticks, make arrowheads, stitch some clothing, but it'd be a communal activity and they'd all sit around and complete tasks while bullshitting with one another.

The tasks completed by women generally had no end to them, there was always more to do. Although the Clan/Tribe would relax together, men had slightly more relaxing time than women.


Relaxing time = Non-producing time


Actually, it doesn't matter who had more free-time. What matters is that these early societies still heavily relied on living animals to live. Farming (where it existed) was, at best, a supplement to food that was foraged or hunted within near the settlement.

When these people would begin to think about the world around them, and wonder about things like Fire, Life, Wind, Water, Death, and so on, they would form their understandings on top of some basic concepts they already knew:

If you don't eat you die

Food = life

The deer is fast

The hawk flies high (and hunts!)

The bear is strong

These animals everywhere are our food

If you die your body is there, but "you" aren't

They understood that what makes any particular person a "person" is missing when they're dead. Every quality by which an individual is measured, understood, and known by is .... boop ... gone when they die.

Likewise with the animals.

You guys ever wonder how old the concept of a soul was?


The body holds the spirit/soul/essence of every living creature while alive.

But, every deer is fast and every bear is strong. These characteristics, they understood, belonged to that type of animal and not that individual.

By taking the meat of that animal into themselves they rationalized that they would take in some amount of those characteristics.

Keep in mind that cannibalism was common to many early human groups. I'm not talking about survival type cannibalism, I mean eating the meat of the dead warriors from the next settlement over after a victorious battle to gain superhuman strength. This rationale and process was/is incredibly well documented among some of the last stone-age peoples on earth, as well as supported by archaeological evidence.

Through a mix of "thanks for the grub that keeps us alive" and "gimmie some of your traits please" the animals in the world around them became objects of reverence, and in most cases worship.

<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/totem_pole_3.jpg" alt="totem_pole3" />

<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/cave_painting_l.jpg" alt="cavepainting" />

<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/flint31.jpg" alt="flintstones" />



It wasn't that hard of an extension to believe that these animals "thought" the same way that any human would. They believed that these animals would love, hope, wonder, anger, frighten just as they do.

But how do you explain things in the natural world that weren't directly caused by animals or people?

Well, the very same type of natural force that inhabits the animals and people all around, that animates the world, is within the trees that grow, the wind that blows, the sun that shines (and moves!), the clouds that rain, and the fires that burn.

Animism - A religious belief that everything on Earth is imbued with a powerful spirit, capable of helping or harming human needs, is called animism. This faith in a universally shared life force was involved in the earliest forms of worship. The concept has survived in many societies, particularly among the tribes of sub-Saharan Africa, the aborigines of Australia, some islanders…

There is no one form of Animism, its a type of religion, and it has existed everywhere early human societies have:

All over Africa

The Eskimos with their totem poles

Native Americans (all of them from what I know)

Druids (half of Europe)

Celts (the other half of Europe)

(very) Ancient Japan

(not-so-ancient) Mongolia

Extensions of early animistic beliefs can be seen throughout history, and today:

This is a Roman officer's helmet:
<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/300210.jpg" alt="roman" />

That red fuzz looks is supposed to be symbolic of a horse's mane (as well as its strength and speed):
it's just red because that's the color of the state of Rome
<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/jaic21-01-001-fig007.jpg" alt="horse" />


Painting of Richard the Lionheart (the king who shows up at the end of Robin Hood), with a shield with his coat of arms on it:
<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/262px-Richard_coeurdelion_g.jpg" alt="Richard Lionheart" />
Can you guess what "power" Richard is hoping to symbolize with that shield?

Lastly, I couldn't help but throw this one in here:
<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/seal-presidential-color.jpg" alt="presidential seal" />

Every single animal that represents a country, state, or high school basketball team is serving the same, albeit less mystical, purpose that animal/spirit representation served early human societies!


<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/FightingIrish.jpg" alt="irish" />

If you ingest the flesh of a leprechaun you gain its wisdom and lucky charms



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole post was just to point out that religion exists as a result of our attempts to explain the world/reality that we exist in. The earliest religions were simple. Later religions became much more complex, entirely due to the fact that later religions came... later, once societies obtained bitchin' skillz at farming and efficiently producing food so they could support a full-time priestly caste.

Once a society had enough people, and efficient enough food production methods, you began to see the emergence of a class structure. Almost Without exception the first "class" that emerged as a grouping separate from the rest of the people was the Ruling Class.

Second: The Priestly Class

Third: The Warrior/Soldier Class

Fourth: The Artisan Class (carpenters, sculptures, etc...)

That should remind you guys of your high school/middle school Civ courses, but keep in mind that before a separate "class" emerged on its own the actions/acts/responsibilities of the "class" would have been part of an earlier existing "class."

Example: In a stone-age society, fancy beads and other art work (meaning shiny nice things, not items that would have significant religious/mystical value) would have been, and was created by, anyone would have the time a patience to learn how to make it.

---Just because there isn't a "class" of people that do something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once civilization really started in earnest, and you had a priestly class, you really began to see complex religions, like Hellenic and Norse beliefs, taking shape.

The Norse belief system is a good example of a society where the priestly class and warrior class is, for all intents and purposes, one-in-the-same.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Next post: I explain the differences between religions that spread by the sword and religions that... kinda sit there and grow.

[NotRob]

So, now that I've covered the basics on religion in civilization let's get to the meat of my argument:

-Religion(s) exist either to explain the world/reality, or as a result of us trying to explain our world/reality

-The spirit/essence/force that early humans understood to embody all of nature slowly became known by other words/ideas:

Stone-Age Man: The wind blows because that is what the wind does, it exists as a thing as much as the spirit/force that causes it, and as much as man exists.

Bronze-Age Man: The wind blows because the God of the Wind wishes it so.

-----The ideas began to change over time and, from a belief of a natural world with spirits and mystic forces, emerged different collections of beliefs where the natural world was the domain of Gods, not just spirits anymore.


To use the evolution of religion in Greece as an example of this:

-The Stone-Age humans held different Spirits and other loosely defined forces as the natural parts of the world that played their own parts in the order of things, just as human played theirs.

-The Bronze-Age humans, overall, underwent a fundamental shift in their world view when it came to the mystical things. The world began to look like a sum of the results of spiritually significant actors with an air of authority to their being. (i.e. Gods)

--By "Actor" I mean: "someone who does something

--Stone-Age man lived in smaller societies that were generally organized in a tribe or clan based system (both of which are just larger extensions of the "family" system). By contrast, Bronze-Age man lived in larger societies with a more a complex organizational structure. These tended to be City-State or Feudal systems where your life was essentially controlled by someone you don't know, and to whom you pledged obedience.


--This change from Clan/Tribe to King/State influenced concepts and understandings of the Mystic, and the mystical world began to reflect the world that Bronze-Age man lived in.



1) Stone-Age man understood that spirits were part of the world/reality just as they themselves were.

2) The world/reality began to change

3) Instead of the Wind blowing because "that is what the wind does, just like a deer runs fast --> because it is a deer," the Wind blows because the God-of-the-Wind made it.

Stone-Age man: each man, deer, or gust of wind was just a man, deer, or gust of wind.

Bronze-Age man: There is an authority in the mystical world where each gust of wind is a result of a God causing it to blow

-This a type of society in which Idolatry would be present, with each Idol being a God that you could pray to for protection. Its halfway between a world with spirits running around all willy nilly, and a the Greek Mythos as we read about in class

4)As the Bronze-Age man's society got more complex, and the organizational structures became even more stratified and hierarchical, religious understandings of the Gods and Spirits changed accordingly.

As the Greek City-States flourished, and as their organizational systems grew accordingly more complex, different members of the Greek Pantheon with clear roles began to emerge very quickly. Thus was born a God that was "King of the Gods," Zeus. The Gods were given clear roles, now, because these people were living in a world where they had clear roles. In a tribe/clan society no such clarity existed in anyone's role.

---> However, no matter how complex the Hellenic/Greek Religion eventually grew to be, it was still a collection of explanations for why the world is "how it is," just as the ancient Animistic religions were.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main point:
The following is the conclusion I came to after awhiles of pondering. Don't just tell me: "You're wrong!!!!!!!!!!!11oneone," convince me that I am. And trust me, it doesn't take much.


-Alongside the Hellenic/Greek Religion, in existing to explain the world we live in, are the Aztec, Incan, Norse, and Zodiac Mythologies, Zoroastrianism, and Judaism.

I call these Explanation-Religions

-In contrast to these beliefs systems stand religions like Christianity and Islam, where instead of providing an explanation or way to understand what you already-know/can-perceive of the natural world, they grab you by the shoulders, shake the everloving **** out of the little man-spirit inside of you, and tell you "the real truth," "what will undoubtedly happen to you when you die, you sinful son of a bitch," and "how you've been ****ing up... asshole."

I call these Answer-Religions, partly because they give you an answer to a question you didn't know was being asked

Again, All mentions of Christianity and Islam pertain to the periods between the years 0 - 1054 and 660 - 1000, respectively. (Before they got all confusing with loads internal differences/variations coming out.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me address some Counter-Arguments before you guys load up on me:

1) Although Christianity provides explanations for the natural world, these explanations are almost entirely from the Old Testament, and yet you (NotRob) stated that Judaism was an explanation-religion, what gives asshole?

-The short answer: two people read the same book and took different messages out of it.

-The NotRob brand rant-answer: Although they both use the same text they don't look at it the same way. Overall, mainstream Judaism holds the Torah (aka Old Testament) to be a text that's divinely inspired. God does not speak any language that a human could hear and survive (think Dogma) and because its also understood that God didn't actually write anything down, the words of the Torah contain what God meant. God's truth doesn't really exist in the words themselves. The truth can only be obtained through (waaaay too much) studying of the Torah. The words of the Torah are meant to be analyzed, the meanings debated, and the lessons argued over. No Jew will ever say that God wrote the Torah. It's understood: a human did it and humans are imperfect. No way could any of God's... anything flow through a human and come out without something being lost in the translation.

Christianity takes the Old Testament and delivers its word like gospel (pun!). "The bible says so, so it must be true," we've all heard it.

Here are two pictures that really sum up the differences between how one learns from the Old Testament in Judaism and Christianity:
<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/8f05_024.jpg" alt="rabbi Hyman Krustofski" />

<img src="http://www.darksidealliance.com/gallery/files/2/7/3/7/BillyGrahampreaching_p171.jpg" alt="BillyGrahampreaching_p171" />

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bah! I hope you guys get my point. I did a shitty job explaining some the finer points, just talked in circles, but its too long and I'll fix it up at a later time.

Now I know this had to have caused a few "whatthe****!?"s out there. See an glaring omission in my logic?... POINT IT OUT!!

[Ditch]

how did those mormons start? and do they have horns? lol

[Cancer]

That was very interesting and enjoyable to read! I need something intelligent once in a while... Anyway, I definitely think most Christians take some parts of the Bible way too literally. As a Christian, I do believe the entire Bible is true, but there are just so many metaphors and other literary devices as well as mistakes in the translation that to take it all at face value is ridiculous. I try to never throw my beliefs in someone's face. It makes me incredibly angry the way some Christians I know do it though... Once not too long ago, this kid I know actually was trying to tell a friend of mine that she was was going to Hell because she was Lutheran instead of Baptist or something like that.

[norm]

There were/are some religions that have fanatical devotees that feel its their mission to spread "the word" (type A) and others that just don't really try to convert others (in comparison)(type B).

Those you mentioned in Type B all fall into your definition of Type A religions. Each one of those Type B religions tried to wipe out other groups of people when they didn't "convert" or fit into their religious beliefs. The Japanese killed 5 to 10 million based on Shinto. You can't forget Alexander the Great's conversion of most of Asia Minor for the Hellenic State of Greece. Speaking of Alexander the Great, after he died and divided his kingdom up several of his generals converted to Buddhism. Because of that they spread Buddhism east all the way into Japan. Do I have to talk about the Celts and Druids violent history? I thought that was pretty well known. The same for Judaism and the Norse Gods. The state of Israel in Old Testament times was pretty violent with their beliefs. The same with the Norse raiding parties.

You made the same mistake everyone does when trying to define religion or some of with some sort of a theory about it. You left out Faith. Read through the Torah, Bible, teachings of Buddha, and so forth. Under the "theory" of trying to explain the world around you'll see the main idea is faith. Faith in something bigger out there then you. Look at the new religions, the math and sciences, all have a "theory" of trying to explain the world. Still the message of those new religions is faith.

Next time you come of with a theory try and present one that isn't so common and ingrained in culture today.

[AndyPants]

You made the same mistake everyone does when trying to define religion or some of with some sort of a theory about it. You left out Faith. Read through the Torah, Bible, teachings of Buddha, and so forth. Under the "theory" of trying to explain the world around you'll see the main idea is faith. Faith in something bigger out there then you. Look at the new religions, the math and sciences, all have a "theory" of trying to explain the world. Still the message of those new religions is faith.

The problem with bringing "faith" into the argument is that it can be the "end all" to any discussion. We need to disregard it for discovery's sake and truly ask why it is we believe what it is we believe. If you can not ask yourself that then you have no right in believing anything.

The other problem with "faith" in general is that it provides a moral authority to those not fit to wield it.

[LvDevilsFan]

Ill just worship the midiclorians and my feeble attempts at using jedi mind tricks to make ppl stay away from my work.... although... when it works... its friggin hilarious.. my co-worker stands there in awe.... heh little girl, wanna see my lightsaber???

[NotRob]

After disappearing from the forum for a little while I came back and realized I didn't actually make my main point "the main point."

The main point was, why did some religions slowly spread through the normal paths (some forcible conversions, some consolidating kingdoms, mostly through population growth) and why did some spread (mainly) by the sword (almost always through forcible or implied-force conversions)

The Japanese killed 5 to 10 million based on Shinto.

The Shinto-Buddhism wars fought in Japan were civil wars that were struggles to gain military dominance (with Shinto and Buddhism acting as the backbone of the two arguing sides). The wars of 19th century Europe were wars of nationalism, but religion and nationalism during these two periods served the same function -->> Something to rally behind.

True Religious Wars (a military-backed struggle to spread the religion) need to be distinguished from most other wars where religion and nationalism serve the same purpose (acting as an identifying factor)...

People always hate other people for being different. <<-- This is not what I'm talking about.

-You can't forget Alexander the Great's conversion of most of Asia Minor for the Hellenic State of Greece.

Long before Nationalism existed the Greeks had the loosest rules for what made you a Greek. All you had to do was speak Greek, have the same culture and beliefs as the Greeks, and act Greek. Ethnicity had nothing to do with it. We now use the word Greek, but back then the word was "Hellenic." Alexander wasn't spreading the Hellenic religion by his sword, he was conquering everything in sight and then attempting to consolidate his Empire by heavily pushing Hellenism (culture+language+religion) upon his new subjects.

The idea was make everyone in your kingdom the same so you could homogenize your rule. Less likely that they'd revolt, because they would see their ruler as the same as them.

Fact: The word "Barbarian" comes from ancient Greek and originally meant "anyone who didn't speak Greek"

Speaking of Alexander the Great, after he died and divided his kingdom up several of his generals converted to Buddhism.

Alexander the Great was one of the best conquerors of all time, but he was one of the worst Emperors. He never clearly set down the rules for succession to his throne so when he died his top Generals fought over his kingdom. Almost immediately after his death his kingdom was divided and taken over by his Generals.

Yes, some of his generals did spread Buddhism, but they did so primarily through further conquest and the semi-passive influence that a conqueror exerts on the conquered. The wars they fought were undertaken to conquer more lands and peoples, not spread the glory that is Buddhism.

Because of that they spread Buddhism east all the way into Japan.

Alexander's generals never got as far as Japan. Buddhism got to Japan via Korea from China, a little while after Japan got its written language from China, also through Korea (that's why Japanese writing looks so similar).

Buddhism got to China primarily because of the efforts of Asoka, the Indian Emperor who actually tried to get Buddhism to spread. However he spread Buddhism by sending out Buddhist emissaries to all surrounding areas he could reach, and setting up biggass Buddhist monuments everywhere.

Do I have to talk about the Celts and Druids violent history? I thought that was pretty well known.

The Celts and the Druids were, early early on in European history, different "types" of peoples living throughout Europe. I say "types" because "Celt" and "Druid" can, and at different points did, refer to: ethnicity, language, and religion.

(Later on in European history (just before Rome conquered everything) the word Druid referred to the priestly class of Celts.)


-->>This is my fault entirely. I shouldn't have used "Celt and Druid" as examples because I didn't specify what time period and what distinction I was referring to. However which type of Celt and Druid I was referring to originally was when they were two different ethnicities and cultures. My fault again, because at that time the Celts and Druids were no more advanced than stone-aged tribal groups and in almost all areas where tribal societies were the norm there usually also existed a state constant war between the groups. It wasn't "war" as we call it, but one tribe would raid another, steal their resources (food, weapons, women, etc...) and continue on.

The same for Judaism and the Norse Gods. The state of Israel in Old Testament times was pretty violent with their beliefs.

Not a god damned book I can find is more violent than the Old Testament.

It should be pointed out though, that in all the God-sanctioned killing and pillaging that went on, at no point was the aim of any military effort to convert another group of people.

-Kill 'em? oh Lord yes
-Convert 'em? No they aren't worthy enough.
-Conqueror, and then spread the word of the Glory that is the King of Kings? ehhh... rarely, mostly just killing others.

The growth of the Judaic population was almost exclusively from making babies, and smiting everyone else. The way that judaism was set up (internally) made it a really difficult to become jewish. You had to learn everything first, be sanctioned by a Rabbi**, and then have a "mikvah," which was to be submerged in a indoor pool (fed by a well) inside a synagogue.

One of Jesus's main problems with Judaism concerned the rules about the "mikvah." He argued that the ritual submersion in water didn't have to be inside a synagogue. He thought that the Rabbi's who oversaw the whole process extorted too much from people who truly did want to convert.... So he did it outside, in the Jordan river -->> and thus you have the practice of Baptism.

The same with the Norse raiding parties.

Again, I didn't make my main point all that clear in the beginning. The Norse didn't spread their religion. They just pulled up to shore, took the livestock, women, and fancy things.... then left.

The Vikings didn't stop their practice of raiding until around the 10th century when a mini Ice-age hit Earth. It got real cold up there (in Scandinavia) and so they started attacking and then staying. Of course they weren't called Vikings by that point. People started calling them Northmen or Norsemen which soon morphed into Norman. When they settled en masse (and then populated) most of northern France, the area became known as Normandy.

Next time you come of with a theory try and present one that isn't so common and ingrained in culture today.

I'm not one of those anti-religion ****wits like Richard Dawkins, who thinks that religion is the "Root of All Evil."

If anything is the Root of all Evil its Man. Regardless if any religion was divinely inspired, Man took it and ran with it in his own direction.

That's neither here nor there.


1. Figure you're a King and you truly and sincerely believe in your religion as the Truth (with a capital T). You know that there are peoples out there who do not yet know the word of Truth, but you find it your mission to spread the Word. Whether by soft spoken prayer or by forged iron, you will fulfill your divine calling.

This is fundamentally different from:

2. Kill all others because they're different!


All religions fit into type number 2 at different points in their history because all societies at different points waged war because someone else was different (and had stuff they wanted).

What I called type A religions fit number 1.


All my ranting here is just my understanding of how these religions are different.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Norm, I realize now that Buddhism is closer to a Type A than the Type B I originally put it as.

[NotRob]

You made the same mistake everyone does when trying to define religion or some of with some sort of a theory about it. You left out Faith. Read through the Torah, Bible, teachings of Buddha, and so forth. Under the "theory" of trying to explain the world around you'll see the main idea is faith. Faith in something bigger out there then you. Look at the new religions, the math and sciences, all have a "theory" of trying to explain the world. Still the message of those new religions is faith.

I should have stated my understanding of it before: "A Faith" is the "theory" of the world/reality that is held by any person/religion.

"faith," as a feeling, is just an unwaivering belief in something. Be it a world-view, religion, or how a toaster works, its power is respective to how "sacred" you view the thing. However, for a belief to be considered "faith" there needs to be at least some amount of "sacred."

"Sacred," is a whole different thing altogether, and there is a biological explanation for it... I should make that another thread. "Sacred" is why "faith" exists.

The problem with bringing "faith" into the argument is that it can be the "end all" to any discussion. We need to disregard it for discovery's sake and truly ask why it is we believe what it is we believe. If you can not ask yourself that then you have no right in believing anything.

No. Faith should not and cannot be disregarded. Faith influences individuals everyday. Faith has held together empires. Faith created order from chaos. Faith led rebellions.

Faith has fundamentally influenced man and to ignore it we deny part of our nature.

I personally believe that faith, the feeling of, has a scientific explanation behind it, but I'm not going there right now.



Faith itself led to wondrous new discovery when science foretold only failure.

Christopher Columbus wanted to sail to India by sailing directly West. He had Faith that his understanding of the winds and circumference of the Earth was correct.

Every royal astronomer to the Spanish court pleaded to Ferdinand and Isabella not to let Columbus set sail, because his math was wrong. They all stated that the Earth was considerably larger than he thought, and if he set sail he and his crew would starve long before they reached India. They were correct. Lucky for Columbus that the Americas were in the way or he would have died.

That doesn't change the fact that his Faith in his understanding of the Earth motivated him to go in the first place.

Somehow history recorded him as a hero who proved the earth was round. That was the fault of an 18th century British historian.

[NotRob]

So I was talking to Ratix awhile back and I realized that.... shit, I was wrong about this thread.

I was trying to force different concepts into categories that didn't exist except artificially.

My bad.

There aren't TWO different types of religions. Just some religions at different points that shared different things about the two concepts outlined above.

The background information that I supplied up top is still valid though.

Thanks,
NotRob

[Gino]

you're still alive? well welcome back