|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 17, 2015 9:15:01 GMT
I loved the Crusades series, never let _____ get in the way of a good crusade. I ponder how they will tie Walpole into Admiral Yi's story.
NonStamp did a video on among the oddest of bible stories:
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 17, 2015 17:46:12 GMT
It was so good. I'm going to make lessons including those videos. Not just for content, but for the actually sort of mechanics of history. Cause, Consequence, etc. The fun stuff.
I'm also pretty sure they snuck Walpole into the art for one of the videos already.
Though it looks like Yi is going to get screwed over. It seems that the Koreans were no better than the later Roman Empire (arguably the entire Roman Empire, it just picked up in the later bits) for that kind of bullshit.
Oh no. That is just too good.
|
|
|
Post by TempestFennac on Oct 17, 2015 18:29:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 18, 2015 7:31:32 GMT
Walpole popped up as one of the prisoners in Justinian's series.
Yi us a badass, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 18, 2015 7:42:31 GMT
The latest vid. 10 to 1 odds and Yi loses no ships.
The guy is like an Alexander or Sulla Felix.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 18, 2015 8:41:34 GMT
It is amazing he didn't drop out when hit with all that BS though.
More amazing is when fundies cite Answers in Genesis, a site which outright states it cannot be honest as it will ignore everything that doesn't fit with their conclusion via their statement of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 18, 2015 9:07:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 18, 2015 9:29:20 GMT
Funny that they are so stuck in Genesis they missed Exodus. Ham said int eh debate with Bill Nye "you could have all the energy in a dead stick and it won't come to life" or something along those lines. He debunked the Bible ebcause in Exodues Pharaoh has some magicians turn some sticks into snakes. Yes, humans perform GENUINE Harry Potter esque magic.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 18, 2015 15:57:01 GMT
The snakes coming to life is more evidence that the early writers of the Bible weren't really Monotheist in the sense that they believed their god was the only one, rather, they believed their god was the best one. Of course, that is all explained by "the gods of Egypt were just demons." Because that is how theologians work, they take the evidence and twist and complicate it until it fits their interpretation. That ain't logic or science.
Saint Augustine is one of my most disliked, even if the following is a bit of a rapid generalization. In his City of Angels "book" or something, he makes a point of arguing that God is the ultimate good and that the kind of Manichean duality does not exist, and that God has no responsibility for evil and so forth. The problem with this is an odd passage that claims Jesus said: "The Devil sinned from the beginning." Easy to see how this is problematic for his desired interpretation. What does he do? "This doesn't mean the devil sinned from the beginning of his creation, but from the beginning of his sin."
I want that to sink in. His logic is: "I don't want to believe the implications of this verse, so I'm going to make it mean the exact opposite of what it actually means."
So that is why I don't like Augustine. Oh, right, we also have him to thank for the notion of eternal punishment catching on, in fact, some other early Christians thought such an idea ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 18, 2015 22:35:48 GMT
This chap goes over the same concept of the biblical writers showing clear sings of difficulty with a monotheistic model via the evolution of Satan in the bible:
People also like to try and say Satan was the snake in the Garden of Eden, just because he is called "that old serpent" once in Revelations despite "Serpent" being an insult (Aladdin calls Jafar a snake in the Disney movie for example).
Fundies will cherry-pick, that is what they do. They focus so hard on reading between the lines they miss the words on the page.
|
|
|
Post by Horsie on Oct 18, 2015 23:52:34 GMT
Or they purposely misrepresent things for their own ends, and hope no one notices.
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 19, 2015 0:03:06 GMT
I sure do prefer Satan as the tester, or the accuser, who is doing God's bidding but also being the type of adviser who doesn't just placate their ruler, instead putting their choices to the test. Of course, this was before there was any notion of God as omniscient and omnipotent. Still, that type of Satan is far more interesting. Or, well, it was kinda a title, but whatever.
Good video.
Also, yes, Renard, exactly. Because they're not bound by logic themselves, and so feel free to ignore it, knowing that the inconsistencies don't bother them because of their faith. Again, this isn't everyone by any means, but definitely important fundies...
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 19, 2015 1:13:58 GMT
They do serious mental gymnastics to overlook such obvious things like the fact that Jesus in Luke was born after 6 AD (Based on Quirinius becoming governor of Syria) while Matthew says it was before 4 BC (because King Herod died in 4 BC and he was a big figure in his version, ordering a mass infanticide you don't see in those nativity plays).
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 19, 2015 2:22:39 GMT
The literalists do the gymnastics, the more lenient bendy people just kind of shrug and go "that's a problem with historical documents in general." But they can get away with that because they don't insist on literal interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by demonnachos on Oct 19, 2015 2:27:40 GMT
It is often amazing just how little of that book people believe yet still they claim it to be the perfect word of their god.
|
|