Forums | MacLife

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"

American please, I'm not familiar with that phrase.

I doubt anyone is with the Latin version.  "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his".

I mention it as a predecessor to the Holy Roman Empire's ....holy war in Germany.

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229).  An estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people were massacred during the crusade.  (in southern France).

Yes, that brutality is one of the many challenges to the idea that the crusades were an understandable response to Muslim cruelty to Christians.

Another one is the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the savage conquest of Constantinople.

resedit wrote:

btw - it looks like conservapaedia itself is not a hoax site, just numerous articles on it are - admittedly written by liberals to mock the site, which is funny but also makes the site useless as an indicator of what they really believe.

The Conservative Bible Project was started by and is very tightly controlled by Andrew Schalfly himself.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - it looks like conservapaedia itself is not a hoax site, just numerous articles on it are - admittedly written by liberals to mock the site, which is funny but also makes the site useless as an indicator of what they really believe.

The Conservative Bible Project was started by and is very tightly controlled by Andrew Schalfly himself.

OK.
Don't be too surprised when conservative Christians flat out reject his book just as much as they flat out reject the Book of Mormon.

I'm already there. This is pretty clearly politically motivated.

I will say that I could see room for a modern translation that attempted to deal with the imprecision of English a bit better might be helpful - but it would have to be sourced from the original documents - not some nutbob's reimagining of it. The multiple forms of love, power, faith, etc. for example, cause confusion. English doesn't have words that are a 100% match, because English is much more context sensitive.

Then, there is the issue of cultural practices that were common at the time, but are practically foreign now. Betrothal, for example, is an odd concept to most English speakers. Engagement is similar, but not identical - since betrothal implied you were considered "married", but you couldn't consummate the marriage until after the ceremony. To do so otherwise was considered adultery, even though though you were 'married' This was why Joseph originally decided to quietly "divorce" Mary, since she would have been stoned to death otherwise. The virgin birth was remarkable enough, but the fact that both of them weren't killed was right up there. A fact lost on today's more liberal population.

Slavery was also much more culturally accepted then - and was a mainstay of many civilizations, thus the passages that relate to how a Christian slave owner should treat his slaves. People of the time accepted it as a matter of fact, and dealt with it accordingly.

I'm not sure how a translation would manage to cover the cultural/linguistic gap without introducing bias, though.

resedit wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

resedit wrote:

btw - it looks like conservapaedia itself is not a hoax site, just numerous articles on it are - admittedly written by liberals to mock the site, which is funny but also makes the site useless as an indicator of what they really believe.

The Conservative Bible Project was started by and is very tightly controlled by Andrew Schalfly himself.

OK.
Don't be too surprised when conservative Christians flat out reject his book just as much as they flat out reject the Book of Mormon.

You mean like exactly what I said at the first mention of it?
Here, let me say it a third time.

I cannot see this gaining traction with conservative Christians either, since it is based on no scholarship and intends to edit out things that make Andrew uncomfortable

Seriously, do you actually read threads?

"Hold the cross high, that I may see it through the flames!"

-Joan of Arc, as she was being burned for heresy.

Hardly any of the religious warring that went on in the 17th century was really about religion. As is always the case, it was about money. For most peasants, you just tried to survive, and you outwardly gave fealty to whichever church happened to be in favor with whichever prince or king happened to have most recently conquered your province.

Kings, princes, and governments shifted religious, political, and national allegiance about as often as they changed their underwear.

KHannon wrote:

Bren wrote:

Kings, princes, and governments shifted religious, political, and national allegiance about as often as they changed their underwear.

I bet back then the underwear wasn't changed often, haha.

Underwear?

What's latin for "freeballin'?"

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Another one is the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the savage conquest of Constantinople.

Are you absolutely sure it's Constantinople and not Istanbul?

Anonymous Delivers! wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Another one is the Fourth Crusade, which resulted in the savage conquest of Constantinople.

Are you absolutely sure it's Constantinople and not Istanbul?

Yes. It wasn't Istanbul until 1453, and even that was a Turkish name. Most Europeans persisted in calling the Turkish city "Constantinople" until 1930, when Ataturk's government got fed up and passed a law preventing delivery of letters that were addressed to "Constantinople" or "Kostantiniyye". Similarly, Edirne is preferred over Adrianople, when speaking of the modern city.

Last edited by jerwin (2009-10-16 12:16 pm)

JakeTheTall wrote:

A joke for the kids and their music, grandpa Jerwin.

They Might Be Giants.

I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that many of my compatriots on this forum weren't even alive during the thirty years war.

jerwin wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

A joke for the kids and their music, grandpa Jerwin.

They Might Be Giants.

I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that many of my compatriots on this forum weren't even alive during the thirty years war.

I know. They all just look at me funny, when I mention Magdeburg, or Spinola , or Wallenstein, or Gustavus Adolphus. They get absolutely incedulous when I mention Cardinal Richelieu.

Sigh.

See what I mean?

Was that before or after the Ferengi traveled back in time to Area 51?

sturner wrote:

See what I mean?

You people are like "fun black holes".