Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Christianity has, at its core, this belief of freedom of conscience; that is, people are free to choose one religion over the other. Whether people like it or not, America is a Christian-based nation, and holds true to this belief.
I think that "freedom" to choose one religion over another, is actually based in the USAmerican government, more than Christianity itself. Christianity, while at its best not pushy or overbearing, is not a system of belief that includes or supports choosing other religions. Today, fortunately, most Christians don't actively persecute non-believers or infidels, but historically and currently, Christianity is not enamored of the mildly Hinduistic idea of compatibility between all religions. However, the US government, especially in the documents of founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson, is committed more or less strongly to that idea of freedom of conscience, and so USAmerica does encourage and promote these ideas of freedom of conscience and/or belief. For the most part.
here's a thought…The invention of the airplane. One of the very first applications after the Wright bros. got the bugs worked out of their flying machine was as military transport, or a spy delivery system. The resultant growth of military aeronautics has been explosive, and coincidently, the only practical method of delivering a nuclear weapon, until the creation of the Crusader artillery cannon, which can spit a shell an uncannily long distance.
It's a wonder, though, why the Aztecs didn't expand north instead of remaining in the hot Mexican sun.
I'm no expert on Central and South American civilization, but north of Mexico is nothing but desert. Some of it is nice, like that in say... New Mexico, but most of it is pretty bad, like... Texas. To the south, however, there was at the very least some fertile ground, even if you did have to burn through the jungle to get at it.
my vote goes to the Incas.the aztecs ruled more people and territory, but they were kind of mean, and liked to sacrifice people. not good.at any rate, the incans were big into astronomical observation, which i think is a huge sign of an advanced civilization.
I highly recommend a fictional novel by Orson Scott Card. (I know, I know, its fiction, but its still really excellent.)The novel is called, Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus. it's a sci-fi novel, but if you can get past that, the author presents his ideas about how the american civilizations could have been protected from European invasions, and what would have happened if they hadn't been so completely wiped out by the Conquistadores. He vaccinates the natives, to counter the diseases; introduces a variant form of christianity, both to ease the fear of the God-like europeans and to aid in diplomatic relations later; and stalls the advance of the Europeans to the New World by about forty years. He postulates that in that forty year time span, the Aztec empire, on its last legs, would have toppled, but been replaced by an empire of Tlaxcalans, who would utilize the leftover Aztec infrastructure to unify most of the tribes who had fallen under Aztec domination. also some interesting things in there about naval tech, and its state in the Americas at the time of the conquest.speculative, i'll grant you, but really cool.
I would like to point out that tesla was half out of his mind, and believed that he could extend his life by giving himself electroshock therapy. sure, he invented electrical engineering, and pioneered huge advances, but he was unstable to the point of insanity. Also, I believe I stated that I would have preferred to vote for Isaac Newton, so let's not allow anti-Edison prejudice to cloud our judgement. I will certainly grant that Edison received far more than his share of lucky breaks at the patent office. also, if this is a question of inventing alone, then Tesla is by far less prolific than Edison. Tesla's prominence as a discoverer of electrical applications is unmatched except for perhaps Faraday--but as this is a question of invention alone, edison has to remain my vote
I don't think I would say that America is too decentralized. Rather, I think it comes down to a matter of accountability.
I like that.
I lean toward August 6, 1945. Every time I look at that date, I get chills. Dropping the first atomic bomb has to be high on any list.
alright, I know this is slightly more than just one battle, but I really want to say the First Crusade.It was the most successful crusade, and made the other crusades seem like a good idea. There are very few events that have had as much of an impact of specifically Western Civ than the Crusades, primarily because they signal the beginning of the Renaissance.Maybe, if you can find it, look at the Battle of Ascalon, where early Crusaders take Jerusalem in 1099. (check wikipedia)?also, possibly the fall of Granada to Ferdinand of spain in early 1492, because it allows him the time to invest a few ships in the mad fancies of one Cristobal Colon, who accidentaly discovers the Americas.
While viewing this stirring dialogue, it has occured to me that there is no one American who can claim the title of worst historical villain. I don't really know why this is, but it is becoming clear that while there are despicable group actions, ocasionally vengeful military leadership, hateful individuals of relatively limited power; there is no one who stands out in my mind as a horrifying villain. Sure, there have been USAmerican leaders who had bad motives, or tried to do bad things, but our government is generally too decentralized, our politics too fragmentary, and our decisions based too much on our own image, or reputation. It is a scary thing to think about, but what if we are relatively guileless only because we conform too much?
I voted for Thomas Edison.? I notice that some of your “inventors” were not actually people who invented machines, but concepts, i.e. Einstein, or people who often didn't build the things they invented, i.e. da Vinci.? If concepts count, then why not add Isaac Newton to the list for his invention of the calculus?
I would postulate that one of the reasons for the US's lack of systematic killing may simply be because of this country's relative youth. I'm sure there are other factors as well, possibly the presence of a relatively free press, and an overall sense of moral superiority. who knows? I guess I'm starting a newer train of thought here, but what would be some of the possible factors that have prevented this kind of thing from happening in the US? Historical trends, or even any historical figures of note?
I'm going to have to say that religiosity as a whole is in decline as more and more folks seek to privatize their beliefs away from traditional institutional churches. The churches who are gaining adherents are the universalist nondenominational sects who market themselves to a younger generation that is growing in apathy to traditional religion.
I don't know how relevant this is to the Great Awakening, but I partially disagree with this analysis of modern religious trends. ?While it is true that people are moving away from older, institutionalized churches, the most important aspect of current church growth is not within the universalist non-denominations. ?Even significant growth in these religious circles is relatively unimportant, because these religious organizations lack the dynamism and enthusiasm of even those older, traditional religious organizations. ?The most important area in current church growth is in the very small, intensely enthusiastic, relationship-driven churches that are springing up in city and suburban areas.Once again, I would like to point out that I don't know very much about the Great Awakening. ?I do know a lot about churches, though, and I think that maybe what connects growing churches today with churches from the Great Awakening period, is not necessarily raw growth, but enthusiasm.
