|
|
History
Jul 13, 2014 12:27:42 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Jul 13, 2014 12:27:42 GMT -5
Here's a few questions that might create some discussion here:
Would have Russia been better off remaining Tsarist after World War 1?
Was the Treaty of Versailles too harsh? Or was it necessary to impose such conditions on Germany?
|
|
|
|
History
Jul 13, 2014 18:08:09 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Jul 13, 2014 18:08:09 GMT -5
Here's a few questions that might create some discussion here: Would have Russia been better off remaining Tsarist after World War 1? Was the Treaty of Versailles too harsh? Or was it necessary to impose such conditions on Germany? I don't know much of the 1st but yess the treaty was overkill. I respect Hitler for what he did for his people to get them out of that mess for the most part . |
|
|
|
History
Jul 16, 2014 11:58:38 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Jul 16, 2014 11:58:38 GMT -5
Here's a few questions that might create some discussion here: Would have Russia been better off remaining Tsarist after World War 1? Was the Treaty of Versailles too harsh? Or was it necessary to impose such conditions on Germany? No, the average Russian was better off during the Soviet-era than during the rule of the Tsars. And yes the Treaty of Versailles was far too harsh. It's also one of the things that caused World War 2. Many Germans were furious about the treaty and they wanted revenge. And Hitler promised to get rid off it (he actually disregarded the treaty plenty of times before the war). |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 13:39:21 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Aug 30, 2014 13:39:21 GMT -5
I'm trying for a new poll but can't think of one bobafett590 Pinda . Though I'd rather not have the poll be something just from like 100 years ago like the WW1 question Boba asked awhile back  |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 13:42:15 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Aug 30, 2014 13:42:15 GMT -5
By the way Genghis Khan was probably the most successful human being ever...
|
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 13:43:20 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Aug 30, 2014 13:43:20 GMT -5
By the way Genghis Khan was probably the most successful human being ever... How? |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 13:48:02 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Aug 30, 2014 13:48:02 GMT -5
By the way Genghis Khan was probably the most successful human being ever... How? His Mongols conquered so much and he has tons of descendants. He was pretty damn successful during his life.  |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 13:52:45 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Aug 30, 2014 13:52:45 GMT -5
His Mongols conquered so much and he has tons of descendants. He was pretty damn successful during his life. That's just one way to measure success. I guess evolutionary he was pretty successful... but I don't think that's the most important thing. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 14:04:59 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Aug 30, 2014 14:04:59 GMT -5
By the way Genghis Khan was probably the most successful human being ever... Nope. Most certainly not. I'd actually say someone like Stalin, Lenin , Mao or some really rich banker somewhere. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 14:29:05 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Aug 30, 2014 14:29:05 GMT -5
By the way Genghis Khan was probably the most successful human being ever... Nope. Most certainly not. I'd actually say someone like Stalin, Lenin , Mao or some really rich banker somewhere. Nah, Stalin, Lenin and Mao weren't that succesful. Pretty much everyone hates them these days and their lives weren't that good either I'd imagine. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 14:37:15 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Aug 30, 2014 14:37:15 GMT -5
Nope. Most certainly not. I'd actually say someone like Stalin, Lenin , Mao or some really rich banker somewhere. Nah, Stalin, Lenin and Mao weren't that succesful. Pretty much everyone hates them these days and their lives weren't that good either I'd imagine. They were, Stalin brought Eastern Europe under his domination and eliminated his political opponents. He and Lenin are the reasons why Russia is a powerful nation today, policies like the NEP and the Five Year Plan kept the Soviet economy going, without them, Russia today would be as weak as it was during Tsarist rule just a little more modernised. |
|
|
|
History
Aug 30, 2014 14:39:43 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Aug 30, 2014 14:39:43 GMT -5
Nah, Stalin, Lenin and Mao weren't that succesful. Pretty much everyone hates them these days and their lives weren't that good either I'd imagine. They were, Stalin brought Eastern Europe under his domination and eliminated his political opponents. He and Lenin are the reasons why Russia is a powerful nation today, policies like the NEP and the Five Year Plan kept the Soviet economy going, without them, Russia today would be as weak as it was during Tsarist rule just a little more modernised. Their ideals are hated around the world though. What about Napoleon? He introduced the metric system and constitutions, among other important things that are still used in most of the world. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 10:42:39 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Sept 30, 2014 10:42:39 GMT -5
I know religion can cause some some problems here, but this is too interesting to be ignored. Historians have finally been able to answer a question that has been around for years: "Did Jesus Christ really exist?" and the answer is: no. After lots of research historians came to the conclusion that he's an entirely fictional character and just made up as part of the Christian mythology. Although plenty of people (especially historians) already believed this it has now been proven. So... Yeah, I guess that's interesting.
|
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 14:57:43 GMT -5
Post by Namialus on Sept 30, 2014 14:57:43 GMT -5
I know religion can cause some some problems here, but this is too interesting to be ignored. Historians have finally been able to answer a question that has been around for years: "Did Jesus Christ really exist?" and the answer is: no. After lots of research historians came to the conclusion that he's an entirely fictional character and just made up as part of the Christian mythology. Although plenty of people (especially historians) already believed this it has now been proven. So... Yeah, I guess that's interesting. Because of what proof? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 15:02:36 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Sept 30, 2014 15:02:36 GMT -5
I know religion can cause some some problems here, but this is too interesting to be ignored. Historians have finally been able to answer a question that has been around for years: "Did Jesus Christ really exist?" and the answer is: no. After lots of research historians came to the conclusion that he's an entirely fictional character and just made up as part of the Christian mythology. Although plenty of people (especially historians) already believed this it has now been proven. So... Yeah, I guess that's interesting. Because of what proof? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious. They researched a few hundred different texts written in Israel during and in the decades after the time Jesus was supposed to have been alive. And none mentioned Jesus or any events connected with Jesus. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 16:54:23 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Star on Sept 30, 2014 16:54:23 GMT -5
Because of what proof? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just curious. They researched a few hundred different texts written in Israel during and in the decades after the time Jesus was supposed to have been alive. And none mentioned Jesus or any events connected with Jesus. That hardly proves anything... Besides, Jesus wasn't liked among many that could write, so why would they want to include him? That would go against what they think. And also, what about the Bible? That's probably equivalent (in length) to these few hundred documents historians read. The Bible is an ancient text of many parts of history (much of which focuses on Jesus) and you consider the Bible an inaccurate source. Who's to say these texts that historians found aren't just as inaccurate, if not more than, the Bible. However, if you'd like to argue that these texts are somewhat or mostly reliable (which I'm sure some are), then that would mean the Bible is also somewhat, if not, mostly/completely accurate. So you can't call these documents these historians found as a more accurate source than the Bible really. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 17:07:04 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Sept 30, 2014 17:07:04 GMT -5
They researched a few hundred different texts written in Israel during and in the decades after the time Jesus was supposed to have been alive. And none mentioned Jesus or any events connected with Jesus. That hardly proves anything... Besides, Jesus wasn't liked among many that could write, so why would they want to include him? That would go against what they think. And also, what about the Bible? That's probably equivalent (in length) to these few hundred documents historians read. The Bible is an ancient text of many parts of history (much of which focuses on Jesus) and you consider the Bible an inaccurate source. Who's to say these texts that historians found aren't just as inaccurate, if not more than, the Bible. However, if you'd like to argue that these texts are somewhat or mostly reliable (which I'm sure some are), then that would mean the Bible is also somewhat, if not, mostly/completely accurate. So you can't call these documents these historians found as a more accurate source than the Bible really. No, Jesus wasn't liked. But the Romans had some very neutral writers, you'd say one of them would have written down the story of someone like Jesus. According to the bible Jesus annoyed the Jewish conservatives and religious leaders, you'd say that a person with the power to pose a threat to a religion that has been around for centuries would at least be mentioned once by Roman historians or just by random people living in the same area that could write. The bible is the only book that mentions these events and Jesus as a person, but the bible isn't considered a reliable source since NONE of the events in it have been confirmed as truth and it's obviously biased. Most historical events and people are described by several sources. For example we can be fairly certain emperor August existed because he was mentioned by many Roman historians (who wrote neutral descriptive texts) and other writers of that age as well. |
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 18:42:03 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Sept 30, 2014 18:42:03 GMT -5
He probably did exist a lot of things in the bible can be proven like how they found Egyptian Chariot wheels in the sea which Moses was supposed to have crossed.
|
|
|
|
History
Sept 30, 2014 18:48:07 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Sept 30, 2014 18:48:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 7:22:48 GMT -5
He probably did exist a lot of things in the bible can be proven like how they found Egyptian Chariot wheels in the sea which Moses was supposed to have crossed. How is that proof... There are plenty of bicycles in Dutch canals... I guess some guy must have split the canals and then let some cyclist drown in it. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist... I wouldn't know. But historians, that did their research, said he didn't... so that's just something interesting to consider... those people know what they're doing. |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Oct 1, 2014 8:39:08 GMT -5
He probably did exist a lot of things in the bible can be proven like how they found Egyptian Chariot wheels in the sea which Moses was supposed to have crossed. How is that proof... There are plenty of bicycles in Dutch canals... I guess some guy must have split the canals and then let some cyclist drown in it. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist... I wouldn't know. But historians, that did their research, said he didn't... so that's just something interesting to consider... those people know what they're doing. I searched it up and couidnt find anything these historians don't speak for anyone but themselves nobody is going to believe them;... |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 8:40:46 GMT -5
How is that proof... There are plenty of bicycles in Dutch canals... I guess some guy must have split the canals and then let some cyclist drown in it. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist... I wouldn't know. But historians, that did their research, said he didn't... so that's just something interesting to consider... those people know what they're doing. I searched it up and couidnt find anything these historians don't speak for anyone but themselves nobody is going to believe them;... They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Oct 1, 2014 8:54:14 GMT -5
I searched it up and couidnt find anything these historians don't speak for anyone but themselves nobody is going to believe them;... They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... Unless the best historians and scientists in the world actually get together and do something like that I may believe them but I don't care for the thoughts of some rag tag team |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 8:58:39 GMT -5
They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... Unless the best historians and scientists in the world actually get together and do something like that I may believe them but I don't care for the thoughts of some rag tag team Scientists have nothing to do with history, they can't proof such things. Historians can and they did. You can believe whatever you want, I'm just saying that historians disagree with you and they have more knowledge on the subject than you. So unless you can proof them wrong they have the most convincing arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Oct 1, 2014 15:44:31 GMT -5
They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... Unless the best historians and scientists in the world actually get together and do something like that I may believe them but I don't care for the thoughts of some rag tag team Do you know who wrote the Bible? No. So why do you care for that? Same concept. |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Oct 1, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
That hardly proves anything... Besides, Jesus wasn't liked among many that could write, so why would they want to include him? That would go against what they think. And also, what about the Bible? That's probably equivalent (in length) to these few hundred documents historians read. The Bible is an ancient text of many parts of history (much of which focuses on Jesus) and you consider the Bible an inaccurate source. Who's to say these texts that historians found aren't just as inaccurate, if not more than, the Bible. However, if you'd like to argue that these texts are somewhat or mostly reliable (which I'm sure some are), then that would mean the Bible is also somewhat, if not, mostly/completely accurate. So you can't call these documents these historians found as a more accurate source than the Bible really. No, Jesus wasn't liked. But the Romans had some very neutral writers, you'd say one of them would have written down the story of someone like Jesus. According to the bible Jesus annoyed the Jewish conservatives and religious leaders, you'd say that a person with the power to pose a threat to a religion that has been around for centuries would at least be mentioned once by Roman historians or just by random people living in the same area that could write. The bible is the only book that mentions these events and Jesus as a person, but the bible isn't considered a reliable source since NONE of the events in it have been confirmed as truth and it's obviously biased. Most historical events and people are described by several sources. For example we can be fairly certain emperor August existed because he was mentioned by many Roman historians (who wrote neutral descriptive texts) and other writers of that age as well. Well Romans killed you if you were Christian or worshiped Jesus so it isn't unrealistic to think that most people kept their mouths shut and pretended he didn't exist. And WTF you're saying Jesus doesn't exist because he's mentioned a lot less by Romans than the ROMAN Emperor? |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 15:51:53 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Oct 1, 2014 15:51:53 GMT -5
I searched it up and couidnt find anything these historians don't speak for anyone but themselves nobody is going to believe them;... They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... But where's the proof part you were talking about? |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 15:54:02 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 15:54:02 GMT -5
No, Jesus wasn't liked. But the Romans had some very neutral writers, you'd say one of them would have written down the story of someone like Jesus. According to the bible Jesus annoyed the Jewish conservatives and religious leaders, you'd say that a person with the power to pose a threat to a religion that has been around for centuries would at least be mentioned once by Roman historians or just by random people living in the same area that could write. The bible is the only book that mentions these events and Jesus as a person, but the bible isn't considered a reliable source since NONE of the events in it have been confirmed as truth and it's obviously biased. Most historical events and people are described by several sources. For example we can be fairly certain emperor August existed because he was mentioned by many Roman historians (who wrote neutral descriptive texts) and other writers of that age as well. Well Romans killed you if you were Christian or worshiped Jesus so it isn't unrealistic to think that most people kept their mouths shut and pretended he didn't exist. And WTF you're saying Jesus doesn't exist because he's mentioned a lot less by Romans than the ROMAN Emperor? Actually the Romans didn't persecute the Christians until Nero's rule. Jesus supposedly lived during the Augustus/Tiberius time. There were barely any Christians at the time anyway. But if the Romans really killed people that worshiped Jesus you would expect one of them to mention Jesus at least once... And no I'm saying Jesus doesn't exist because he was never mentioned. I was just using Augustus as an example of how we determine the existence of historical figures. |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 15:56:08 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 15:56:08 GMT -5
They did a scientific research on it. Whether you are going to believe them or not doesn't matter, this is the outcome of their research and there has never been a research that proved Jesus did exist... so... But where's the proof part you were talking about? There are plenty of things to be found about it, it's a pretty recent research. I actually saw it on Reddit but there's plenty to find on it with Google news. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Oct 1, 2014 15:57:05 GMT -5
Well Romans killed you if you were Christian or worshiped Jesus so it isn't unrealistic to think that most people kept their mouths shut and pretended he didn't exist. And WTF you're saying Jesus doesn't exist because he's mentioned a lot less by Romans than the ROMAN Emperor? Actually the Romans didn't persecute the Christians until Nero's rule. Jesus supposedly lived during the Augustus/Tiberius time. There were barely any Christians at the time anyway. But if the Romans really killed people that worshiped Jesus you would expect one of them to mention Jesus at least once... And no I'm saying Jesus doesn't exist because he was never mentioned. I was just using Augustus as an example of how we determine the existence of historical figures. Rome tried everything to destroy Christianity. Is it unrealistic that they would burn mention of him and try to erase his existence? Not Really. |
|
it’s been quite a while. I’ve been pretty good, how about yourself? 