(04-09-2014, 07:27 AM)Carousal Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:12 AM)milo Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:08 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  milo are you working for Big Brother??

i just think people take an unrealistic view of history. It is a collection of stories that may or may not have happened. If they are boring stories, rewrite them more interesting.

Turning Braveheart into a paedophile you mean?

If you find paedophilia intersting, sure. Who is this Braveheart person? Did he marry Pocohontas?

If you are talking about Mel Gibson, he married a supermodel and turned into a raving maniac.

I studied history at university. The way it is taught below that level is generally outrageously awful. Teachers drone on about dates and other things so insignificant that even 10 year olds realize they don't matter. No wonder people don't like it enough to want to study it more. With a base of "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and not much more of course people tend to accept whatever they see on the TV.

(04-09-2014, 07:41 AM)justcloudy Wrote:  I studied history at university. The way it is taught below that level is generally outrageously awful. Teachers drone on about dates and other things so insignificant that even 10 year olds realize they don't matter. No wonder people don't like it enough to want to study it more. With a base of "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and not much more of course people tend to accept whatever they see on the TV.

I love history - well, any well-written story that is. i frequently rewrite it in blank verse with more easily digestible morals.

(04-09-2014, 07:31 AM)milo Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:27 AM)Carousal Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:12 AM)milo Wrote:  i just think people take an unrealistic view of history. It is a collection of stories that may or may not have happened. If they are boring stories, rewrite them more interesting.

Turning Braveheart into a paedophile you mean?

If you find paedophilia intersting, sure. Who is this Braveheart person? Did he marry Pocohontas?

William Wallace -. Braveheart – Mel Gibson who got sexy with Princess Isabella aged nine.
Isabella born 1294 Braveheart separated from his arms, legs, head and Willy (They didn’t show that bit) in 1305 for upsetting the peace loving English.
Work it out for yourself.

(04-09-2014, 07:47 AM)milo Wrote:  I love history - well, any well-written story that is. i frequently rewrite it in blank verse with more easily digestible morals.

I did like your version of Sweeney Todd. Saucy.

(04-09-2014, 08:03 AM)Carousal Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:31 AM)milo Wrote:  

(04-09-2014, 07:27 AM)Carousal Wrote:  Turning Braveheart into a paedophile you mean?

If you find paedophilia intersting, sure. Who is this Braveheart person? Did he marry Pocohontas?

William Wallace -. Braveheart – Mel Gibson who got sexy with Princess Isabella aged nine.
Isabella born 1294 Braveheart separated from his arms, legs, head and Willy (They didn’t show that bit) in 1305 for upsetting the peace loving English.
Work it out for yourself.

If that's the story you read, sure.

No its the film---Got it? Christ its like shelling peas.

(04-09-2014, 08:11 AM)Carousal Wrote:  No its the film---Got it? Christ its like shelling peas.

I am waiting for the remake. I hear it takes place in Tennessee.

Is that the one where William, Jim and Davy hold Stirling Bridge against the Spanglish?

---

The fact is, Braveheart was a fictional riff on a partially factual character whose legend far exceeded actuality. So? The statue outside the Wallace Monument at Stirling is of Mel Gibson, because that's who is recognised as William Wallace -- but the monument itself is home to a wonderful history of the Scottish people and their achievements, which tourists will remember. Where's the harm in sucking them in with pop culture?

Similarly, the Da Vinci Code was an unmitigated pile of vomitous garbage, but its mention of Rosslyn Chapel has led to such an increase in tourist numbers that the Chapel society has made enough money to undertake repairs that have been needed for nearly a century. If bad things must be done to history, at least there are benefits.

A School Teacher who taught history was having difficulty with his students in that they were not learning history, as per the board of education. So...to engage them more he wrote songs about historical events from American History as it was called then. The kids liked the songs, the parents liked the songs, so as they say he took it on the road. That's where I met him, I hired him to preform as one of the opening acts at the University(that had become my job as I had somehow become the publicity chairman of the student board (evidently smoking pot does mess with your memory). A remarkable man. He looked old as a tree stump despite him dying his hair pitch black. He had single-handedly saved the demise of the hammer dulcimer. Part of his show besides singing historically accurate songs was to introduce people to the instruments used in traditional American folk music (not to be confused with Bob Dylan), and as the people got to see the instruments used and featured in the songs that Jimmy had written they became...engaged. Today of course this song would not get past the school censors as it talks about the intervention of a supposed deity. Back then it did fly because people were more religious (or at least tried to pretend they were), and smarter, because they knew that the kids would eventually learn the "real" history. In the meantime, the songs would engage them with history because this way it would capture their attention and imagination. No one was afraid the kids would believe the mythological part of the stories were true, as they were already telling them at home that God had come down and given Moses the Ten Commandments. Plus, those same Ten Commandments (which aren't even all correct according to the history channel) were posted in every class room. I don't know if they learned their history better, but it is reported that the children were better behaved than the ones today, but that is all ancient history. (I had to write these from memory, but I think they are correct, more or less). Dale

The Giant on a Thunderhead - Jimmy Driftwood

A bunch of rebel soldiers were sitting ‘round one night
talking to some Yankees in a spot way out of sight,
snuck across the picket lines to have a little chat,
swapping their tobacco and a trading this and that.

While they were a talking, they looked a way up high,
and saw a giant a walking across the moonlit sky
he sat down on a pillow, it was a thunderhead,
look down on the soldiers, and this is what he said.

You Yankees and you Rebels, shake hands and then caress
you’ll never build a nation out of all this bloody mess.
You Yankees and you Rebels, shake hands and then caress
go and read your Bibles, and the Gettysburg address.

The boys went to they’re bedrolls afraid to talk out loud
about the mighty giant they saw upon a cloud,
next day two famous Generals met near an apple tree,
one of them was U. S. Grant, an one was Robert E. Lee.

And when they finished, and everybody knew,
the awful war was over they shouted halleloo,
and everybody wondered about the thunderhead,
did U. S. Grant and Robert E. Lee hear what the giant said.

You Yankees and you Rebels, shake hands and then caress
you’ll never build a nation out of all this bloody mess.
You Yankees and you Rebels, shake hands and then caress
go and read your Bibles, and the Gettysburg address.

I watched "Noah" the other day. Apparently there is a line to cross when it comes to editing a historical plot, but if it's from the Bible they are free to turn angels into rock monsters and nobody will care.
It was actually highly amusing to watch.

Sorry I missed that. Were there actually angels in the story of Noah? There is an interesting story about Noah in the book of Enoch. His father suspected Noah was the offspring of a god, because he was an albino, and the gods were also pale with white hair. So Noah's dad asked his dad who was Enoch's son to ask Enoch if Noah was completely human. Enoch being tight with "The Lord" asked God what the deal was, and found out that yes indeed Noah was fully human. However, I think I have read most of the extra-textual books related to the Bible, and I have never heard of "rock monsters".

Dale

(04-21-2014, 11:02 AM)Erthona Wrote:  Sorry I missed that. Were there actually angels in the story of Noah? There is an interesting story about Noah in the book of Enoch. His father suspected Noah was the offspring of a god, because he was an albino, and the gods were also pale with white hair. So Noah's dad asked his dad who was Enoch's son to ask Enoch if Noah was completely human. Enoch being tight with "The Lord" asked God what the deal was, and found out that yes indeed Noah was fully human. However, I think I have read most of the extra-textual books related to the Bible, and I have never heard of "rock monsters".

Dale

I just finished a Religion class, and since we were studying the Bible as the Hebrew Bible, I completely forgot that the story of the fallen angels didn't make it into biblical canon.

Long and only semi-reliable historical ramble alert:

One interesting thing about the Bible is that there is no specific "Satan" in it, although the word "Satan" (translated) means "adversary" (to God), and this word makes a few appearances.The story of the fallen angels is where the idea comes from. This story is in the Book of Enoch, a Jewish religious text that doesn't always make it into the Hebrew Bible. The whole fallen angels thing appears in many related early Jewish and Christian texts but was largely rejected. The main idea seems to be that some angels fell in love with human women and came down (or "fell"), slept with them and created monsters. This is often linked to the reason God decided to send out that flood. However, other texts suggest that God cast these angels out because they refused to bow down to Adam, saying they would only bow to God. So who really knows. They are sometimes called the "Watchers," which is what they are called in the movie.

All this to say that (small spoiler alert) in the movie "Noah," these fallen angels are portrayed as rock monsters. They look kind of like Transformers, but made from rocks. They help Noah to build his ark. From the moment these rock monsters appear on screen, the story of Noah gets less and less Biblical and more Russell Crowe (who plays Noah). The character is basically Javert. While the story of Noah doesn't have lots of tiny details, the movie manages to make itself biblically inaccurate and just completely illogical.

But it is a LOT of fun to watch and make fun of! My friend and I were dying of laughter at the back of the movie theatre.

Sorry for the long response, hope I didn't bore anyone!

Yes, I think in the biblical canon old testament Lucifer is used only once and in reference to a Babylonian King. There are a lot of parallels between the the pseudepigrapha and the stories from the Sumerian cuneiform.

Dale

I just find it interesting how the idea of Satan and then later the idea of Satan/Lucifer the devil became such a fact... They even talk about Satan in Catholic services. The history of Religion is strange... but interesting.

The Bible was Hollywood before Hollywood. Most of the time movies are more realistic than the Bible. The Bible is not the Word of God. The Bible is a compilation, and a selected one. If a person is religious, they can't trust the Church, and they can't trust a book. I find the Bible more useful than the Necronomicon, but they're both as dangerous. The Bible is something a religious person has to struggle with. The Gospels, the four included in the Bible, are as Satanic as they are Christian. The Spirit of the Jesus story is what counts. Every word, in whatever language, should be wrestled with.

As for the Satan problem: Just because the Satan myth is younger than other traditions doesn't mean it's less important. Being older doesn't make something more authentic.

That's true but it is a fact that there were gods that mated with human women and produced demi-god offspring. We have multiple confirmation (pun) on that.

dale

@Rowens: I was more just pointing out the discrepancy between society/media/culture's portrayal of Satan as opposed to who he is in myth and scripture. You're right, though- doesn't mean he isn't important. I just mean that Satan isn't a little red man with horns and a pitchfork, just an angel who followed one word of God and broke another. So "Satanic" would refer to a text that is centred around Satan, who is not a character in the Bible at all. "Satanic" means something completely different nowadays.

Rosa,

It don't do no good trying to be rational with Rowens, he's a sideways thinker, and sometimes he gets so deep into the sideways he can't find himself for days, and has to have his fictionalized characters do the writing for him. It's not that he can't understand rational thought, he can, but it's like that you can step in fresh dog shit, you just don't want to, and neither does he. Now that does not mean that he won't talk to you rational like, but he is always just sort of standing on the edge ready to hop off if the smell gets to bad.


dale