Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It's amazing how things like that get pushed back and forgotten.
This makes me smile... the Canadians didn't wait as long to relax.Case in point; on my first trip north top a shooting event I met a former Panzer driver (with Rommel) and his shooting buddy an Irishman that flew with the RAF in the Battle of Britian.Hate the game not the player, eh?Wally
Sad news recently; Fritz passed away in October at 85. After a POW stint in the US went to the UK and then immigrated to Canada; served in the Canadian Militia driving Shermans in Alberta. The Greatest Generation weren't all Americans, eh? Or should it be yah?
I don't think I'd go with the idea that it was "conversion or death", if only because when these original Roman pagan festivals would be held Christians would likely not have held any political power at all, and even under Constantine I don't think that non-Christians were persecuted as the Edict of Milan dealt with tolerance rather than instituting one and suppressing the others.
I was thinking New World here....
But I do agree that what Christians did may have been a savvy form of marketing, whether intentional or not. Establishing a parallel feast likely allowed new Christian converts to continue traditional activities of merry-making on certain dates within their new religion, albeit for a different reason.
Just my point.
A good question to explore would be whether this kind of "capturing" of another group's traditions or institutions was unique to Christianity. I think it was probably not, and I think it was simply the way civilizations operated back then. Actually, people still operate in this manner today; look at the modern celebration of Kwaanza, which seems to have been conveniently instituted among the festive time of Christmas and New Years. I don't think that was an coincidence.
Agreed. Again smart marketing, eh?
IMHO; largely made possible by the reactionary nature of the Congress of Vienna… and France's desire to get back into the fold, so to speak, with the rest of Europe. None of the nations wanted to see monarchy abolished by revolution and jointly agreed that they would work together to prevent it (at least on on the continent) hence the failed attempts in the late 1820's and again in 1848….
This is probably a subject for a different forum but I think that it calls into question a religions integrity when they adopt non-Christian traditions to appease the masses, even if the bible condemns such traditions.
Not so much a lack of integrity but a wealth of salesmanship; the big goal was to Christianize the pagans... if one can sell them on Christianity by showing them a festival that parallels their own Christianity is less strange and threatening the pagans are more likely to give it a try. If not then they could be killed. Conversion or death, net result less pagans. Sorry if that sounds harsh but seems to have been the end result in too many cases.On a brighter note the sales pitch used by Patrick in Ireland was pretty heady; got the Celts to sign on by simply buying into the idea of Confession that the Celts functioned under (see Cahill; How the Irish Saved Civilization for details).Wally
… hmmm. How about if we play word games here… this may bog down in definitions and conditions but here goes.Sargon (about 2334-2279 BCE) could be considered the first Emperor... as he unified first all the city-states of Sumer and then conquered the rest of Mesopotamia. He ruled all the different groups from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.Menes' claim is to being the first Pharoah, unifying Upper and Upper Egypt (c 3100 BCE) according to tradition, establishing Memphis as the capital and starting the 1st Dynasty. According to some he's a myth and his accomplishments belong to, later kings... Aha, Scorpion, or Narmer. While we can agrue this mythological idea being the first Pharoah (also translates great house) might just mean he was the first one to get remembered.Is it a bigger deal to get the folks next door to let you be the King or conquer everybody in the Fertile Cresent?Either way... in the words of Mel Brooks (HWP1), "It's good to be the King!"Cheers,Wally
I found it interesting that he was "ahead of his time" in regard to religious tolerance. Refer to the thread on George Washington's Religious View.
Makes him all the more an outstanding figure, IMHO.
Upon the death of Queen Anne, the wife of Duke Ernest Augustus, Electress Sophia of Hanover would have become Queen as the nearest Protestant heir… she died a few weeks before Anne (her first cousin) and so Sophia's son, George Louis, Elector of Hanover, became King when Anne died. Reigning as George I; first of the Hanoverian Line and successor to the Stuarts.
Today it is what it is… then it was what it was… when we judge history by our “standards” the past always “looses”. In his time that was the societal norm. No excuses just what was; that this is no longer the norm in most of the world is proof we're gaining, IMHO.Wally
That is correct, Wally!
Wish I could take some credit, having taught science years ago, but it was a Wiki search.
My POV; while the religious issue is large the grassroots nature is the key… all the colonies and most everyone was on the same page about something for the first time. Connections made were the beginnings o connections that would flesh out later as committees of correspondence. The challenge to church status quo doesn't take much pushing to become challenge to political status quo a huge step toward revolution (or evolution if you will)… the connections and the fervor are the key to it all.
.... There are a few I dont look forward to, A few I have seen and wondered why they were on the list at all.
Might have more to do with someones and their political agenda than artistic values?
