 |
| |
|
|
thinkingamer
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by History Guy
The Hebrews, through Christianity, have had tremendous influence everywhere on Earth, and especially today in Asia and China, where it had been strong in from 400 to 900 AD until it was outlawed by the Emperors. I would say that the influence of the Hebrews, through Christianity and the Good Book alone, matches if not overcomes the influence of the Greeks. |
Ok, im not a history expert, but i don't think that the Jews should get credit of "their influence of Christianity on all earth". Because except the fact that Jesus was a Jew (he made gentiles as important as Jews in Christianity), and because of this the Jews (most of them) rejected Christianity. Greeks and (specially!) Rome had more influence to the world through Christianity.
Sorry, my English is weak.
Last edited by thinkingamer on 09-07-2002 at 12:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Palleon
|
 |
Bourbonnais, IL
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't think neither firaxis nor infogrames will decide to put in the hebrew. ofcourse, the religious influence on the world was enormouse, but the decision would be waaaaayyyy too political. it such critical times as a game designer, you cannot put in something like that.
|
How is adding the Hebrews political at all? Because they're in the news? Guess what, every civ is too "political". I agree with whoever first made this post, the Hebrews had a tremendous affect on early society, and formed the basis for one of the most predominant religions in the western world today. Just because the Palenstinians decide to bomb their civilians every couple days, doesn't mean that should exclude them from the game. When I think of the term civilization, I think back to groups that actually were around in the ancient periods. If any group should go, it should be the Americans, because we're really just an offshoot of Europe, and a colony, not something that started up there, by the same reasoning, that's why Austrailia should never be a civ, it was just a prison colony of England that got it's independance too. And While I'm talking about America, switch the leader to Washington or Jefferson. Or Dubya.
Last edited by Palleon on 08-07-2002 at 23:21
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sabrewolf
|
 |
turicum, helvetistan
Jun 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Palleon
How is adding the Hebrews political at all? Because they're in the news? Guess what, every civ is too "political". I agree with whoever first made this post, the Hebrews had a tremendous affect on early society, and formed the basis for one of the most predominant religions in the western world today. Just because the Palenstinians decide to bomb their civilians every couple days, doesn't mean that should exclude them from the game. When I think of the term civilization, I think back to groups that actually were around in the ancient periods. If any group should go, it should be the Americans, because we're really just an offshoot of Europe, and a colony, not something that started up there, by the same reasoning, that's why Austrailia should never be a civ, it was just a prison colony of England that got it's independance too. And While I'm talking about America, switch the leader to Washington or Jefferson. Or Dubba. |
there's always three stories: one on each side and the truth somewhere between. i don't want to comment who's fault as who's right in the middle east. that belongs in the off-topic forum.
of course every present country and civilization is the news. but none of these (except maybe the US) are currently at war or polarize that much.
there were a lot of threads about the US not belonging in. i think the choice shouldn't be only based on ancient times. e.g. the germanic were considered barbarians by the romans. the current selection isn't bad. it's got the most of the most powerful civs throughout history inside. some ancient, some imperialistic, some industial age, some modern time. the only ones REALLY missing are the spanish. but that's fixed in PTW.
dubya as leader?  "they missunderestimate me" after every trade 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
 |
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
My 2 cents:
Hebrews should be Militaristic, Religious, and Commericial.
NO UU. Their civilization was never large enough are lasted long enough(the Hebrew civilization was sporadic, it would establish itself then someone would wipe them out and haul them off into slavery only to have them negotiate their civilization back into existence again) to support one, besides they have three traits.
Other ideas:
Unelimination ability. The Hebrew civilization can NEVER be wiped out. It will ALWAYS respawn. Let's face it, the Hebrews have taken more genocidal assaults than anybody and they keep coming back for more. Neither the Egyptians, Babylonians, Hittites, Persians, Greeks, Romans, or British have EVER been able to destroy the Hebrew civilization.
UU concepts:
Prophets or Judges Have no idea what their ability would be, unless you give them the ability to 'convert' other civ's units like in Civ2.
Ark of the Covenant Could be a UU that works similar to a nuclear missle in ancient times, or a wonder that allows you to build 'Wrath of God' units that work the same as nuclear missles in Ancient Times.
Sire, the Babylonians fear our Wrath of God!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GhengisFarb
|
|
I want my HAMBURGERS!!
May 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Ark of the Covenant Could be a UU that works similar to a nuclear missle in ancient times, or a wonder that allows you to build 'Wrath of God' units that work the same as nuclear missles in Ancient Times.
Sire, the Babylonians fear our Wrath of God! |
Okay, I REALLY like the "Wrath of God" unit idea. I'm going to have to work on the graphics for this when I get home. Anybody got any pictures or arguments for who the Hebrew leader should be and I'll make that too. What the heck, I'm already making Genghis Khan, Boudicca, and Hannibal, what's difference is adding a Hebrew ruler gonna make.......
Leader possibilities:King Saul, Abraham, King David, King Solomon, Moses, Jacob(more of a general though), or Isaac.
I'm thinking the attack sound should be a real powerful voice saying "YOU HAVE BEEN FOUND UNWORTHY!" followed by screaming and a loud explosion.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
SeferKoheleth
|
|
I don't have time to respond fully at this point.... but that website is the most unhistorical Jew-hating piece of crap that I've read in awhile. Pulling a chronology out of nowhere based on terrible assumptions of a conspiracy, selective quotes from historians of extremely dubious veracity (Herodotus) or who post-dated the events by a millenia (Tacticus) are taken as gospel... blatant ignoring of records that don't fit with the ridiculous and convoluted theory (i.e. ancient inscriptions referring to the house of david, Cyrus's proclomation to rebuild the temple, the 2500 year uninterrupted continuance of Bablyon's Jewish community, the clearly semetic inscriptions dating back thousands of years), implicit racism in declaring the ancient Middle East too "white" for Jews etc., not to mention a blatant ignorance of Achem's Razor.... all to deny thousands of years of history with an anti-Jewish slander.
What else should I have expected from a European....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
L13
|
|
quote:
What else should I have expected from a European.... |
What shall I say?
But you could say that the jews pulled "a chronology out of nowhere"
And just because someone have a different view on the subject on jews that you doesn't mean they are rabbid jew haters.
And perhaps if you really read it your, hrm, constructive critique would be a lot easier to read.
But admit that OT is somewhat boooring and often lacks a little bit of realism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SeferKoheleth
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by L13
What shall I say?
But you could say that the jews pulled "a chronology out of nowhere"
And just because someone have a different view on the subject on jews that you doesn't mean they are rabbid jew haters.
And perhaps if you really read it your, hrm, constructive critique would be a lot easier to read.
But admit that OT is somewhat boooring and often lacks a little bit of realism. |
"a different view on the subject of jews"--
as in what? a crazed dislike? I'm sorry but if you use a terrible pseudo-history to deny clear historical events, just for the sake of slandering Jews as recent imposters, you qualify as a Jew-hater. Let me ask you this.... why do you except the "histories" of every ancient people as 100% correct, except for the history of the Jews? Modern historians recognize problems in EVERY ancient history (such as a reluctance to record defeats, an exaggerated list of accomplishments). Why are you solely fixated on your "different view"?
You might jump at the accusation, but I think it's borne out by your actions.
The so-called "OT" and modern archeology do not match up entirely... but that's a far cry from denying all of Jewish history until the year 65 b.c.e. with a highly implausible theory that pulls supposition from here, ignores facts from there etc.
Modern mainstream archeology can basically prove the Bible from the period of the middle kings on (i.e. Hezekiah, Ahab etc.) through the Babylonian Captivity, the return to the land and the Second Commonwealth. So we can "prove" Jewish history until about 800 b.c.e. or so... a pretty long ways.
The patriarchs, judges and early kings do not appear in archeology, but there's not necessarily any reason to believe they didn't exist-- absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. For example, from the Bible's own account, Abraham, Issac and Jacob were simply wealthy shepards and landowners. There's no reason or expectation for such people to leave behind historical records attesting to their existance.
Given their mention in the Bible, it's reasonable to expect that something like Biblical events happened--- maybe "enhanced" from reality, but so does every other people's history. You can't find any evidence of the Hyksos or Egyptian military defeats from Egyptian history, for example... you learn about that stuff from Babylonian and Assyrian history. Why? Because the Egyptians (like other ancient peoples, with the EXCEPTION of the Bible) didn't record their defeats... only their victories. For their defeats, you have to learn the history of their enemies.
So what does archeology show? Basically that semetic peoples in the land of canaan with an egyptian influence (look at early Hebrew script for example, closely resembling Egyptian pictograms) coallessed and formed a state.
Interestingly (though I personally don't buy this account entirely), some non-mainstream archeologists note that if you redate Egyptian history (where all dates are quite speculative) you find a perfect artictecutal match for the so-called "OT"--- http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-07-2002 05:00
|