kahit yung original manuscript ng Bible, written by man pa din. dun na lang tayo sa Qu'Ran, written by God himself

i still believe in God, and i try to live my life in a way He would consider good and moral. i still believe that the Church does do more good than harm in the world. but i will not accept the words of His human agents in blind faith. some people on this forum need to understand that this is not the same thing as not believing in God or Christ.

Quote Originally Posted by oldblue
hehehe not really. in modern times, puwede siguro. like the US military, mixture of different people with different backgrounds/culture/religion still manage to unite.

but in the older days, warriors/armies who's got God (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) by their side had the advantage. ancient people -> knights, peasants, lords, foot soldiers, officers, kings feared the supernatural.

why do you think the barbarians/pagans became extinct? they had the same weapons/armors too. in fact, they even have the advantage in battle bec. they can kill without remorse with no religion to confuse them. but still they fell.
bosing, did you know that the Roman empire was founded as a pagan empire? Rome didn't become Christian until Constantine I signed the Edict of Milan. by then Rome had already conquered most of the Old World, from Britain to the northwest to Syria to the East.

here's a link to how Julius Caesar conquered the tribes of Gaul (a region that is now France and parts of Germany and Italy) in two short years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Wars

here's the relevant text:
----------------------------
"The Roman success in the Gallic Wars was due to a combination of clever politics, effective campaigning and greater military capability than their Gaulish opponents. Caesar pursued a policy of "divide and rule" to pick off his enemies, siding with individual tribes in disputes with their local rivals. He systematically gathered intelligence on the Gallic tribes to identify their characteristics, weaknesses and divisions and so dispose of them in turn.

Many of Caesar's troops were themselves Gallic, so the conflict was not simply a war between Romans and Gauls. Indeed, his army was an extremely cosmopolitan entity. Its core was six (later ten) legions of heavy infantry, supported by the equivalent of two more in later campaigns. He relied on foreign allies for his cavalry and light infantry, recruiting from the Numidians, Cretan, Spanish, Germans and Gauls. Caesar made very effective use of these forces, exploiting individual units' pride to spur them to greater efforts.

Caesar's Gallic opponents were considerably less capable militarily than the Romans. They could field large armies but suffered from a lack of flexibility and discipline. Gallic warriors were ferocious opponents and were much admired for this by the Romans (see the Dying Gaul), but they lacked discipline in the field. Their tactics were effectively confined to charging their opponents en masse, and their lack of cohesion made them incapable of any sophistication in battle. They also lacked any logistical support and were unable to stay in the field for as long as the Romans."