Xshayathiya
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 233
unfortunately no. I'm ignorant of these things, 
I didnt even know there was one .
I didnt even know there was one .
Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article
- Thread starter cyrusIII85
- Start date
cyrusIII85
Warlord
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 111
Xshayathiya said:unfortunately no. I'm ignorant of these things,
Good news is that you can get the DVD through the website. In fact, I created a review for Boss Scorpious. I can PM it to you if you like.
Xshayathiya
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 233
cyrusIII85 said:
Yes please
Forgive the tardy response. My internet access has been somewhat restricted lately. I'm going to adopt you're method of numbering posts in the interest of saving character space.
1. Alright. You've defined 'strictly'. That's a starting point.
You have not defined strictly monotheistic or strictly dualistic. In the context given, the two phrases mean 'monotheistic to the exclusion of all other possibilities' and 'dualistic to the exclusion of all other possibilities'. It is self evidently absurd to claim, under that definition, that something can simultaneously be 'strictly monotheistic and strictly dualistic'.
2. I'm working under the assumption that the end of time is an unspecified point that will, by definition, take all time to reach. If there's a specified year to Zorroastrianism's Second Coming, then it's not asymtopic.
3. It's got nothing to do with bias. It's an in built function of language and definitions -- if something has a meaning, contradictory ideas gannot be introduced without changing that meaning. When two ideas fundementally opposed as monotheism and polytheism, they cannot co-exist or be intergrated and retain any meaningful measure of the orginal concepts. Your point makes no more sense than 1=2.
4. Lots of Jews thought so, too. Hence the whole split between Christianity and Judaism.
5. Nothing justifies evil. That doesn't mean Persia didn't benefit in some way from the Arab invasions.
6. They clearly did not fail militarily, as they won. The administrative regime was a complete failure until it adopted Persian method and Persian administrators. Incidentally, this is an example of the mutually beneficial relationship enjoyed between the Arab empire and Persia.
I disagree with the point that Iran was independent from the Islamic Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries, on account of Persia having largely become Islamic at that point and the original empire of the Caliphs having collapsed under its own weight. It was, however, more or less independent of the various Arab empires that existed.
7. The Abbasid dynasty, linguistically and, to a large extent, culturally Arab (if not ethnically) were famous for their promotion of Persian culture and language.
8. I am in no way defending the brutalities of the Mongolian Empire. However, that brutality does not erase the cultural achievements carried out either by the Mongols or because of the sheer size of their empire. The Mongols were particuarly significant in that they carried the achievements of Imperial China to the borders of Europe.
9. The relationship was beneficial to the Arabs -- they received a millenia old tradition of learning and all its achievements. The relationship was beneficial to the Persians -- they received a huge influx in numbers, new conceptsnot only from the Arabian peninsula (including, amongst other things, ideas which would lead to the formulation of New Persian), but also from the territories which came under Arab influence. Of course, the benefits were not immediate, universal or equally distributed. But they did happen.
10. a) Roman citizenship was eventually conferred to all male inhabitants of the Empire. Hence Peter's right to a trial in Rome after being imprisoned in Palestine, b) the Islamic empire, in its early stages, was very disciminative and elitist. As Islam became more interested in prosetlysing and conversion, these restrictions were reduced, until such a point that Persian became the second most important language even Islamic Empire and its successor states.
11. Literature was misleading -- I meant the rules which governed literature: eloquence, rhetoric, prose etc. Even when direct Arabian influence disappeared from the Iranian plateau, Arabic did not vanish, nor was it systemically and universally suppressed. Due to the central role Arabic played in Islam and the fact that endured, even grew, after the end of Arab rule, the language remained very important. Even after New Persian was developed, it was written in Arabic script and incorporated a large amount of the Arabic vocabulary.
12. When something enters the greater Arabic consciousness because it is written in Arabic, it is considered Arabic literature. I divide literature based on the language in which it is written, not where the author lived. If a piece of writing makes a significant contribution to one language, then it is that language that benefits, no matter what the lingua franca of the region is.
And you don't see the value of translating texts because you're ignoring the inherent value of knowing more than one language and the fact that such knowledge, quite independently of content, changes the way people think.
1. Alright. You've defined 'strictly'. That's a starting point.
You have not defined strictly monotheistic or strictly dualistic. In the context given, the two phrases mean 'monotheistic to the exclusion of all other possibilities' and 'dualistic to the exclusion of all other possibilities'. It is self evidently absurd to claim, under that definition, that something can simultaneously be 'strictly monotheistic and strictly dualistic'.
2. I'm working under the assumption that the end of time is an unspecified point that will, by definition, take all time to reach. If there's a specified year to Zorroastrianism's Second Coming, then it's not asymtopic.
3. It's got nothing to do with bias. It's an in built function of language and definitions -- if something has a meaning, contradictory ideas gannot be introduced without changing that meaning. When two ideas fundementally opposed as monotheism and polytheism, they cannot co-exist or be intergrated and retain any meaningful measure of the orginal concepts. Your point makes no more sense than 1=2.
4. Lots of Jews thought so, too. Hence the whole split between Christianity and Judaism.
5. Nothing justifies evil. That doesn't mean Persia didn't benefit in some way from the Arab invasions.
6. They clearly did not fail militarily, as they won. The administrative regime was a complete failure until it adopted Persian method and Persian administrators. Incidentally, this is an example of the mutually beneficial relationship enjoyed between the Arab empire and Persia.
I disagree with the point that Iran was independent from the Islamic Empire during the 8th and 9th centuries, on account of Persia having largely become Islamic at that point and the original empire of the Caliphs having collapsed under its own weight. It was, however, more or less independent of the various Arab empires that existed.
7. The Abbasid dynasty, linguistically and, to a large extent, culturally Arab (if not ethnically) were famous for their promotion of Persian culture and language.
8. I am in no way defending the brutalities of the Mongolian Empire. However, that brutality does not erase the cultural achievements carried out either by the Mongols or because of the sheer size of their empire. The Mongols were particuarly significant in that they carried the achievements of Imperial China to the borders of Europe.
9. The relationship was beneficial to the Arabs -- they received a millenia old tradition of learning and all its achievements. The relationship was beneficial to the Persians -- they received a huge influx in numbers, new conceptsnot only from the Arabian peninsula (including, amongst other things, ideas which would lead to the formulation of New Persian), but also from the territories which came under Arab influence. Of course, the benefits were not immediate, universal or equally distributed. But they did happen.
10. a) Roman citizenship was eventually conferred to all male inhabitants of the Empire. Hence Peter's right to a trial in Rome after being imprisoned in Palestine, b) the Islamic empire, in its early stages, was very disciminative and elitist. As Islam became more interested in prosetlysing and conversion, these restrictions were reduced, until such a point that Persian became the second most important language even Islamic Empire and its successor states.
11. Literature was misleading -- I meant the rules which governed literature: eloquence, rhetoric, prose etc. Even when direct Arabian influence disappeared from the Iranian plateau, Arabic did not vanish, nor was it systemically and universally suppressed. Due to the central role Arabic played in Islam and the fact that endured, even grew, after the end of Arab rule, the language remained very important. Even after New Persian was developed, it was written in Arabic script and incorporated a large amount of the Arabic vocabulary.
12. When something enters the greater Arabic consciousness because it is written in Arabic, it is considered Arabic literature. I divide literature based on the language in which it is written, not where the author lived. If a piece of writing makes a significant contribution to one language, then it is that language that benefits, no matter what the lingua franca of the region is.
And you don't see the value of translating texts because you're ignoring the inherent value of knowing more than one language and the fact that such knowledge, quite independently of content, changes the way people think.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
SmokeyD said:
Clarifying side note: Christianity is the one that state's that doers of good Don't gain God's favor (since no man is a doer of Good.capital G) but acknowledging God (and His superior position and character, henceforth faith) is enough to gain that favor. (since it is favor... not wages)
If you are talking about the apostle mentioned in Acts it is Paul, not Peter that gets a trial in Rome after being imprisoned in Palestine, and he was born a Roman citizen. (Peter was executed later so by then Roman law may have changed)
It depends which branch of Christianity you believe.
St. Augustine's doctrine says that we are all inherently sinful because of Adam's original sin, and that we depend entirely on begging God for forgiveness. Babies that die early go straight to hell. This has been part of Catholic doctrine for a very long time, although it's been lost a little bit now. It has been revived by many protestant evangelicals and the methodists.
The Pelagian heresy, which started in Britain and has been hard to stamp out here, says that actually we can redeem ourselves by doing good deeds; that we do have control over our fate for eternity. This is, I think, the doctrine of the CofE.
So actually, Christianity says that doers of good do gain God's favour. The papist heretics have been fooled by flagellants on guilt trips into believing that they're all tainted by someone else's wrongdoing.
St. Augustine's doctrine says that we are all inherently sinful because of Adam's original sin, and that we depend entirely on begging God for forgiveness. Babies that die early go straight to hell. This has been part of Catholic doctrine for a very long time, although it's been lost a little bit now. It has been revived by many protestant evangelicals and the methodists.
The Pelagian heresy, which started in Britain and has been hard to stamp out here, says that actually we can redeem ourselves by doing good deeds; that we do have control over our fate for eternity. This is, I think, the doctrine of the CofE.
So actually, Christianity says that doers of good do gain God's favour. The papist heretics have been fooled by flagellants on guilt trips into believing that they're all tainted by someone else's wrongdoing.
Similar threads
