|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 15:59:13 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 15:59:13 GMT -5
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. The Romans valued history. They would not destroy neutral (or negative) texts that described Jesus. Besides there are plenty of historical books from the era before Christian persecution. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Oct 1, 2014 16:05:58 GMT -5
Paulkovich just seems like an arrogant dick begging for attention. He isn't acting like he made some groundbreaking discovery. He just wants to preach his ways and hope he can make everyone regard Jesus as fiction. HIs evidence is flawed and doesn't really make much sense. It's impossible to prove someone from that long ago didn't exist. You just can't. Newan It's kinda funny though that a guy named "Michael" is arguing against Religion, am I right?  |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 16:09:04 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Oct 1, 2014 16:09:04 GMT -5
Paulkovich just seems like an arrogant dick begging for attention. He isn't acting like he made some groundbreaking discovery. He just wants to preach his ways and hope he can make everyone regard Jesus as fiction. HIs evidence is flawed and doesn't really make much sense. It's impossible to prove someone from that long ago didn't exist. You just can't. Newan It's kinda funny though that a guy named "Michael" is arguing against Religion, am I right? This guy is a recognized historian and plenty of other historians have made similar claims (something similar was mentioned in one of my school books) but he's the first one to research it, or at least the first person with a research that's getting media attention. It IS possible to prove it someone existed or not. Not with a 100% accuracy perhaps but you can be pretty certain about it. Historians prove these kind of things these things all the time. |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 17:09:31 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Oct 1, 2014 17:09:31 GMT -5
Paulkovich just seems like an arrogant dick begging for attention. He isn't acting like he made some groundbreaking discovery. He just wants to preach his ways and hope he can make everyone regard Jesus as fiction. HIs evidence is flawed and doesn't really make much sense. It's impossible to prove someone from that long ago didn't exist. You just can't. Newan It's kinda funny though that a guy named "Michael" is arguing against Religion, am I right? Lol yeah kinda it makes it laughable. |
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 19:02:14 GMT -5
Post by Namialus on Oct 1, 2014 19:02:14 GMT -5
You know, it's also pretty laughable that a guy could turn water to wine and walk on water.
|
|
|
|
History
Oct 1, 2014 23:38:00 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Oct 1, 2014 23:38:00 GMT -5
You know, it's also pretty laughable that a guy could turn water to wine and walk on water. Well yes it's called you add your grapes to your jug of water you get from the fountain any fountain would do to fill it and you let it sit in your bank for awhile but I mean grapes are over priced it would be better to buy your wine but in the other hand why would you need it I mean it's not used for much unless you want to lower everything which is stupid so basically wine is useless. Oh i walk on water as well  it's called ice it tends to show up between now and April. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Oct 2, 2014 0:49:23 GMT -5
You know, it's also pretty laughable that a guy could turn water to wine and walk on water.  |
|
|
|
History
Oct 2, 2014 14:13:00 GMT -5
Post by Namialus on Oct 2, 2014 14:13:00 GMT -5
You know, it's also pretty laughable that a guy could turn water to wine and walk on water. Well yes it's called you add your grapes to your jug of water you get from the fountain any fountain would do to fill it and you let it sit in your bank for awhile but I mean grapes are over priced it would be better to buy your wine but in the other hand why would you need it I mean it's not used for much unless you want to lower everything which is stupid so basically wine is useless. Oh i walk on water as well it's called ice it tends to show up between now and April. Not the way the Bible wrote it. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Oct 2, 2014 14:22:48 GMT -5
You know, it's also pretty laughable that a guy could turn water to wine and walk on water. Well yes it's called you add your grapes to your jug of water you get from the fountain any fountain would do to fill it and you let it sit in your bank for awhile but I mean grapes are over priced it would be better to buy your wine but in the other hand why would you need it I mean it's not used for much unless you want to lower everything which is stupid so basically wine is useless. Oh i walk on water as well it's called ice it tends to show up between now and April.Newan, please... Jesus didn't live in Canada... |
|
|
|
Post by Namialus on Oct 2, 2014 16:37:52 GMT -5
Well yes it's called you add your grapes to your jug of water you get from the fountain any fountain would do to fill it and you let it sit in your bank for awhile but I mean grapes are over priced it would be better to buy your wine but in the other hand why would you need it I mean it's not used for much unless you want to lower everything which is stupid so basically wine is useless. Oh i walk on water as well it's called ice it tends to show up between now and April.Newan, please... Jesus didn't live in Canada... Oh yes, ice doesn't occur where Jesus was. |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Dec 25, 2014 18:35:14 GMT -5
 Exactly 100 years ago the German and English soldiers played soccer together during World War 1. They were threatened with being charged for desertion by their commanders if they did it again, because the governments of both countries feared that the soldiers would realize that Germans and Englishmen aren't that different after all and that the entire war was just a pointless battle between the elite of both countries. |
|
|
|
History
Dec 25, 2014 18:38:19 GMT -5
Post by Jedi Knight Fett on Dec 25, 2014 18:38:19 GMT -5
That sad and Nice at the same time because you realize that they climbed right back in those trenches and they just started killing each other again.
|
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 17:51:08 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 18, 2015 17:51:08 GMT -5
We're learning about WWI in school.
|
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 22:11:47 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Star on Mar 18, 2015 22:11:47 GMT -5
We're learning about WWI in school. For the first time or again but more in depth? Because formally learning about it for the first time right now would be late for you.  Either way, that's an interesting topic to study.  I've been doing political stuff all year (aka Civics). Next year I'll take World History again (more in-depth obviously) and possibly another history course that's very intense and thought-provoking since history is one of my favorite subjects. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 22:29:14 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Mar 18, 2015 22:29:14 GMT -5
We're learning about WWI in school. It's boring |
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 23:15:02 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 18, 2015 23:15:02 GMT -5
We're learning about WWI in school. For the first time or again but more in depth? Because formally learning about it for the first time right now would be late for you. Either way, that's an interesting topic to study. I've been doing political stuff all year (aka Civics). Next year I'll take World History again (more in-depth obviously) and possibly another history course that's very intense and thought-provoking since history is one of my favorite subjects. Well yeah of course we've learned about it but now we're going more into detail about the reasons behind the war and the stuff like the strategies the Germans used to fight forces from both the East and the West. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 23:16:30 GMT -5
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 18, 2015 23:16:30 GMT -5
We're learning about WWI in school. It's boring It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and shit. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 18, 2015 23:46:51 GMT -5
Post by Newan on Mar 18, 2015 23:46:51 GMT -5
It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and Potato Rules. Yeah it was just about who had the biggest army and if Britain really had a 2:1 ratio navy like they wanted they could have just cut through German ships go up towards the Northern German coastline and Bomb the place into submission then D-day them rather then all the trench BS. |
|
|
|
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 19, 2015 1:44:33 GMT -5
It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and Potato Rules. Yeah it was just about who had the biggest army and if Britain really had a 2:1 ratio navy like they wanted they could have just cut through German ships go up towards the Northern German coastline and Bomb the place into submission then D-day them rather then all the trench BS. Instead of The Great War, the shoulda called it The Dick Measuring Contest War. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 4:49:33 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Mar 19, 2015 4:49:33 GMT -5
It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and Potato Rules. WWII was about Hitler wanting more "lebensraum" not exactly the best reason either... |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 7:33:04 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 19, 2015 7:33:04 GMT -5
It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and Potato Rules. WWII was about Hitler wanting more "lebensraum" not exactly the best reason either... No but like the reason for the rest of the world getting in was better. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 10:43:55 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Mar 19, 2015 10:43:55 GMT -5
It was probably the stupidest war in the history of ever. Like there were at least reasons to fight in WWII. WWI was just about pride and Potato Rules. Yeah it was just about who had the biggest army and if Britain really had a 2:1 ratio navy like they wanted they could have just cut through German ships go up towards the Northern German coastline and Bomb the place into submission then D-day them rather then all the trench BS. War isn't that simple... especially when it comes to naval engagements. The coast of Germany was dotted with mines and defended by a large fleet. Britain's fleet was far bigger ( by quite a large margin) but it not only had other commitments but also couldn't risk losing a large portion of their fleet. The one stationed at Scapa Flow was probably the most important of them all and would have only been used to engage the German fleet if it were well away from the Kiel Canal and the fortified German coastlines. Still, the British fleet did the next best thing and blockaded Germany to such an extent that by 1917/18 the country was facing famine and supply shortages. Also, regarding your trench remark, you have to appreciate that not much could be done to end trench warfare once it had started.
If I'm honest though.... Britain should have stayed out of the war because it got nothing out of it. Even the colonies gained at Versailles didn't make up for the eventual loss in trade, prosperity and military supremacy. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 10:58:00 GMT -5
Post by Pinda on Mar 19, 2015 10:58:00 GMT -5
Yeah it was just about who had the biggest army and if Britain really had a 2:1 ratio navy like they wanted they could have just cut through German ships go up towards the Northern German coastline and Bomb the place into submission then D-day them rather then all the trench BS. War isn't that simple... especially when it comes to naval engagements. The coast of Germany was dotted with mines and defended by a large fleet. Britain's fleet was far bigger ( by quite a large margin) but it not only had other commitments but also couldn't risk losing a large portion of their fleet. The one stationed at Scapa Flow was probably the most important of them all and would have only been used to engage the German fleet if it were well away from the Kiel Canal and the fortified German coastlines. Still, the British fleet did the next best thing and blockaded Germany to such an extent that by 1917/18 the country was facing famine and supply shortages. Also, regarding your trench remark, you have to appreciate that not much could be done to end trench warfare once it had started.
If I'm honest though.... Britain should have stayed out of the war because it got nothing out of it. Even the colonies gained at Versailles didn't make up for the eventual loss in trade, prosperity and military supremacy. There are no winners in war. Every country lost in WW1. There was no gain for anyone. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 11:19:44 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Mar 19, 2015 11:19:44 GMT -5
War isn't that simple... especially when it comes to naval engagements. The coast of Germany was dotted with mines and defended by a large fleet. Britain's fleet was far bigger ( by quite a large margin) but it not only had other commitments but also couldn't risk losing a large portion of their fleet. The one stationed at Scapa Flow was probably the most important of them all and would have only been used to engage the German fleet if it were well away from the Kiel Canal and the fortified German coastlines. Still, the British fleet did the next best thing and blockaded Germany to such an extent that by 1917/18 the country was facing famine and supply shortages. Also, regarding your trench remark, you have to appreciate that not much could be done to end trench warfare once it had started.
If I'm honest though.... Britain should have stayed out of the war because it got nothing out of it. Even the colonies gained at Versailles didn't make up for the eventual loss in trade, prosperity and military supremacy. There are no winners in war. Every country lost in WW1. There was no gain for anyone. Well for the USA there was..... Britain was in a weaker position (during the war people changed from buying British goods to American ones thus British industry went into decline) and the European continent was devastated meaning that for the most part, they couldn't challenge outrageously one sided agreements like the Washington Treaties. And I guess you could say that the nationalists in the Austrian and Turkish Empires won as well for the most part (but as you know, I don't think either of the Empires should have been broken up, just forced to adopt federal systems of government), they got their independence and achieved their goals. |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 11:22:33 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Spidyyr on Mar 19, 2015 11:22:33 GMT -5
There are no winners in war. Every country lost in WW1. There was no gain for anyone. Well for the USA there was..... Britain was in a weaker position (during the war people changed from buying British goods to American ones thus British industry went into decline) and the European continent was devastated meaning that for the most part, they couldn't challenge outrageously one sided agreements like the Washington Treaties. And I guess you could say that the nationalists in the Austrian and Turkish Empires won as well for the most part (but as you know, I don't think either of the Empires should have been broken up, just forced to adopt federal systems of government), they got their independence and achieved their goals. USA! NUMBER ONE! |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 11:26:49 GMT -5
Post by bobafett590 on Mar 19, 2015 11:26:49 GMT -5
Well for the USA there was..... Britain was in a weaker position (during the war people changed from buying British goods to American ones thus British industry went into decline) and the European continent was devastated meaning that for the most part, they couldn't challenge outrageously one sided agreements like the Washington Treaties. And I guess you could say that the nationalists in the Austrian and Turkish Empires won as well for the most part (but as you know, I don't think either of the Empires should have been broken up, just forced to adopt federal systems of government), they got their independence and achieved their goals. USA! NUMBER ONE! Her Majesty is not amused.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pinda on Mar 19, 2015 12:00:01 GMT -5
Her Majesty is not amused. Der Führer auch nicht |
|
|
|
History
Mar 19, 2015 13:31:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Cad Bane (Dark) on Mar 19, 2015 13:31:43 GMT -5
Exactly 100 years ago the German and English soldiers played soccer together during World War 1. They were threatened with being charged for desertion by their commanders if they did it again, because the governments of both countries feared that the soldiers would realize that Germans and Englishmen aren't that different after all and that the entire war was just a pointless battle between the elite of both countries. Lol that must have been pretty weird/awkward... How did they communicate though... |
|
|
|
Post by Newan on Mar 19, 2015 14:15:22 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence
|
|
|
|
Post by bobafett590 on Mar 19, 2015 14:36:26 GMT -5
Yeah there's winners America won the war of independence Yeah I think most wars have clear winners and if a side achieves what it set out to do in a war they are a winner to me. |
|
it's called ice it tends to show up between now and April.
I've been doing political stuff all year (aka Civics). Next year I'll take World History again (more in-depth obviously) and possibly another history course that's very intense and thought-provoking since history is one of my favorite subjects. 
