That post should probably be in Plotinus' excellent Ask a Theologian thread, rather than here.
What is the most misunderstood historical event?
- Thread starter abradley
- Start date
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Let's be honest, most of the thread should not be here.
Why? I see many examples of misunderstood historical events here.
Everyone knows that not making basic arithmetic mistakes is a trait reserved for engineers.
The rest don't bother
Then again, the graph shows up to 0,1%, so half a billion could be theorised if need be to have been poignant, if 0.1% also is marginally divisible in that graph.
So yeah, i can go with that too!
Ha. I can tell you don't deal with engineers very often.
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
God started with life in the waters and it moved into the air and onto land. I think that that process of ongoing creation over these "days" could have been what we describe as an evolutionary process. Yes the animals ended up different and god gave dominion over the animals to man and I believe only mankind is divinely inspired with a soul, the bible says that, but it doesn't say exactly what god's method for creation was, only that he spoke and light came into existence and he separated the waters and created land masses, all this stuff, that if it happened over a long period of time does not fly in the face of evolutionist theory at all, but in many ways goes hand in hand with it.
I think our idea of evolution could just be our observation of the creation process. God even took woman and made her from man's rib. I don't know exactly what that means, but is it literal? Maybe it means humans started as one thing and developed genders and our reproductive systems later.
It just amazes me how many christians read the bible as literal interpretation all the time. Plus it's a translation, like I said, days isn't the same word we use for a day describing 24 hours in English.
Nothing in this post relates to history.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Well, you can't very well argue with the "logic" that this god wanted the Jews to be conquered by the Romans, unlike other previous incidents when he just committed genocide against their enemies by completely destroying them all in various ways. That Jesus, a Jew, wanted other Jews to kill him so that millions of Jews could be senselessly persecuted and murdered by Christians in the future because they were responsible for killing him. That he preached peace while preparing Christians to be the warmongering aggressors they would later become. That this was all just part of his grand plan to better humanity.
You can essentially rationalize anything by quote mining the OT and the NT.
I think the most misunderstood historical mega-event easily goes to those very same Christians. They have turned these ancient scriptures into a worldwide campaign of preaching peace while doing the exact opposite nearly every opportunity they got. They have been immensely successful doing so. and it is all due to volumes of contradictory scripture written by humans instead of a god.
Nathiri
Commander
Do you see the Israelites going up and conquering the Hittites, or the Egyptians? No. The Israelites only conquered the areas that God had told them to take from the inhabitants there because their cup of iniquity had been filled. God gave the original inhabitants the land, and He can take it again. The same was applied to the Israelites. While God chose Israel to be His people and for Him to be their God, they were held accountable. If they worshipped other man-made gods, then He would remove them from the land. And it wasnt just one mess-up, the Israelites did it again and again and again, till finally God did what He had said He would do. But remember, all things work together for good. There were certain advantages to being under an empire and I think you can see the purpose of that.
Where has Christians killed Jews? and does the actions of some professing Christians account for all professing Christians? Why are you so critical of Christians, and not the same for Islam as well? Do you know that Islam is a break-off of the Roman Catholic Church?
Do you realise that some of the greatest scientists and also great thinkers were Christians? Examples: Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur (was also one of the first ones to say publicly that he believed evolution was not true. He also already proved only from Life Arises Life just before Darwin published his theory), Johannes Kepler.
Does World War II ring a bell?
Newton was into alchemy, and Kepler made more money casting horoscopes than on doing real science.
That's not to dismiss their actual scientific achievements, but they were still capable of being sidetracked into pseudoscience.
Nathiri
Commander
Nazism was the main cause of this and Nazism believes in atheism not Christianity.
Newton was considered a very learned man and also one that studied the Bible extensively and knew the Bible as much as ministers are supposed to know.
Kepler believed studying science brought him closer to God as did most Christian scientists. But he also knew astrology lacked trustworthiness. To Christians, God created the heavens, so studying the heavens they would learn more about God. As says this phrase from the Psalms, "the heavens declare the glory of God".
"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to CHRISTIANITY as the very basis of our collective morality. Today CHRISTIANS stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the CHRISTIAN spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press -- in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of LIBERAL excess during the past years" -- Adolph Hitler (Taken from The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1, Michael Hakeem, Ph.D. (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871-872.)
Nathiri
Commander
Then why did Hitler restrict what Christians could teach? and also treated them very poorly? He also said he would bring in National Socialism as his party was, but he never did.
There was an awful lot of that stuff in the Middle Ages, especially during the First Crusade, and if some Christians' activities don't reflect on all Christians, why is the same not held for Muslims?
Just like Lutheranism, Calvinism, Anglicanism and all the oldest Protestant sects? What's more, why on earth do you say that?
No concept can profess a belief in any other concept, but the Nazis certainly were not atheists. Neo-pagans, spiritualists, Catholics and so on, but not atheists. As for Hitler, he was crazy and certainly didn't represent all Nazis, even if he was their leader and founder.
ISIS certainly wants to restrict what Muslims can teach and has treated many Muslims poorly.
Nathiri
Commander
The Roman Catholic Church was the main Christian group at the time, and were the main group involved with the Crusades. Their beliefs at the time show in their actions.
I never meant to refer to all Muslims, but I am certainly suspicious of many as I know what many of their teachings teach and what they can do. Until further observance of them, I cannot be sure what they believe. Trusting what they say is also a problem. There are certainly more moderate Muslims that do not follow the beliefs of more radical Muslims.
Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism were not break-offs, but splits in the same religion. Islam was the start of a complete new religion with new revelation.
Alright, I wont speak on this and you are right that Hitler did not represent all Nazis.
they "restrict"? No, they are not restricting, but trying to follow what they believe to be the heart of Islam and are trying to encourage other Muslims to do so. They are not restricting beliefs, but trying to add to the more moderate Muslim beliefs. As far as treating other Muslims poorly is not entirely accurate. They are treating Christians very poorly, forcing them to convert or die. Also burning down the churches in the areas they control. Treating other Muslims poorly is only in terms of war and who is in power.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Who do you think has been predominately responsible for antisemitism in Western society? Atheists?
Oh. That's right. You actually buy into the current revisionist history myth that Germany was predominately atheist during WWII instead of overwhelmingly Christian, since Hitler was such a hypocritical nut when it came to religious beliefs.
Ironically, that is what I have been stating all along.
Now apply it to all Muslims as well so that this perspective isn't completely hypocritical.
I am critical of all religions. But I am particularly critical of religious hypocrisy. What you support is really no different than what the vast majority of Muslims support. It is just a slightly different form of the very same Abrahamic mythology written by humans instead of a god.
I am not actually defending Islam at all, which should be obvious if you took the time to read what I have posted. What I am speaking out against is using a blatant double standard to judge Islam differently than any other Abrahmic religion where they all actually worship the very same god.
Do you realize that Muslims consider Jesus to be another prophet much like Mohammed? That what he said is inexorably part of their religion as well?
Do I visit Catholic and Islamic hate sites to get or reinforce my opinions? No. Do you?
Islam is clearly a branch of the very same basic faith which encompasses Judaism and Christianity as well. But to claim that its roots are with the Roman Catholic Church, instead of the teachings of Jesus, is just another attempt by Protestants to smear them both.
Do you realize that Newton has been called a "heretic" in modern times due to his wacky religious fanaticism?
There is no doubt Newton was a brilliant scientist. He may have even been the greatest scientist who ever lived. But his personal life was a complete shambles, and his views outside of science were weird beyond imagination.
Using the views of Newton and others to rationalize your own opinions is called the fallacy of appeal to authority. It might even be somewhat relevant if his chosen field of study where he was an acknowledged expert was mythology instead of physics. But as a scientist, his opinions carry no more weight than those of Richard Dawkins, or any number of other atheists who understand far more about evolution and modern science than Newton ever did.
So Hitler was treating Christians poorly even though he was not specifically targeting them for death, but ISIS is not treating Muslims poorly even though it is specifically targeting certain Muslims for death?
Other than the Orthodox Church of course, the religion of the Byzantine Empire, the Rus and various Balkan states.
Except that Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and so on presumably had been Catholics before the Reformation, unlike Muhammad and his followers, who never had been. Yes, Islam is an Abrahamic faith, but I'd thought that Islam would have been most affected by Chalcedonian/Orthodox Christianity (rather than by Rome), given their geographical proximity and later conquests of Byzantine territory.
