What's the dumbest thing you've heard history related? Mine is when a teacher asked who was president in 1956 and someone legitimately answered Lincoln, not as a joke.
>The Gospels were written by Jesus.
I'm not trying to start an atheist vs Christian debate shitfling here, but I had a HS teacher in all seriousness tell the class that all 4 gospels were attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, and looked confused when someone asked why they had 4 different names then.
Chick in 9th grade with me didn't know who the Nazis were.
I don't understand why this is so hard for protestants to understand. Can someone please explain to me why?
I am not religious so I am assuming some definitions here. "Faith with works," I am assuming means belief in God through faith with the addition of prayer, following the commandments, going to church, etc. That is, someone who believes works are necessary for salvation would believe that faith is not sufficient for salvation. "Faith without works," I am going to assume means belief in God through faith without the addition of prayer, following the commandments, going to church, etc. That is, someone...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
I find throughout history that there are often different groups of people mentioned as important forces in some part of history. But after mentioning them, the book transfers into a more state-wise and less ethnic based viewpoint. By the time ethnicity is acknowledged again, everything about the situation is different.
Early Middle Ages, all sorts of Germanic peoples everywhere, Franks, Goths, Saxons, etc. But the textbook starts focusing on Charlemagne or whatever, and the people largely go unmentioned, and soon enough we're discussing Germans, French people, Italians,...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thanks mate, but I doubt my thread is gonna get much replies. As far as I know, the peasantry of the middle ages, who were often ruled by people of a completely different ethnicity, are poorly documented. I wonder if the reason is solely because of Romans documenting the early peoples well, but the documentation falls apart afterwards
Give me one good reason not to be an egalitarian that isn't edgy, retarded, or chalked up to semantics
>The notion of progress in the historical sense assumes the existence of a stable and consistent viewpoint. However, since our viewpoint is constantly shifting in time, it's impossible to completely evaluate the new state of affairs objectively and to compare it with the past. The only possible way we could morally evaluate our era in comparison with the past is if we find an actual living being from the past, transfer them to the present and ask them what they think; since this is impossible, the notion of progress should be discarded.
How do you respond to this?
Why were socialist ideas so strong with german navy? I was under impression army was mostly conservative.
Socialism is a system where upper middle class intellectuals exploit the lower class into bloody revolution to put then in power, then massacre and oppress said lower class. Happened every time. Wish I could say there was an exception. I really do.
>The English civil war has just begun
>You are a minor nobleman
>Will you declare for Charles the 1st and back the royalist cause?
>Or will you take up arms against your King and back Cromwell and the other parliamentarians.
>Roundhead or Cavalier
What do /his/?
How revolutionary was the American revolution?
>power structures are the same post war
That's it lads, I got it right.
What is this?
Interesring query. Is it a teapot? Or merely an image of a teapot? Moreover, what decides whether something is a teapot? We do? Wouldn't that mean we humans have some mystical power to give something its essence? We say something is and it is.
God creates the world and a paradise and within in it, a tree from which he forbade he creations from partaking of its fruit. But they do so anyways, and are cast from paradise.
A descendant of this man passes by a tree, and expects there to be fruit for him to eat, but and finds it without fruit. He then curses the tree for not having any fruit for him to take, and wishes that no one else may eat fruit from this tree either.
God then kills the tree.
What does this parable say about man?
>26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
What did he mean by this?
What are some /his/ approved documentaries?
The World at War is the GOAT WWII doc
ITT: post your 3x3 of your favourite historical figures.
We try to guess where you're from.
>tfw you'll never be an autistic antiquity era nerd who writes books about savaages
>tfw you'll never be named roman emperor against your will
I hear a lot from my leftist friends that Hitler was actually good for Germany prior to the war, the things like instating unions and building highways. Is this just an overblown and perpetuated meme, or did Hitler actually do a lot of good for his country? My knowledge of WW2 is extremely sparse, my school decided to focus on our country's(Australia's) involvement rather than teaching us something more macro.
I can't help but feel it's people trying to be contrarian and say he was kind of a good guy.
Imagine a more extremist version of FDRs New Deal and youll get an idea of what Hitler did. Like FDR war was a necessary component and it probably wouldnt have done all that well had he been peaceful