DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Soul, you simply cannot ever understand the 16th and 17th century unless you understand the theological differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism - and to a lesser extent Anglicanism and Anabaptism. Here is the easiest way I can put it, - What is 16th century European history usually named? Usually the 'Renaissance and Reformation'? - Who triggered the latter? Martin Luther in 1517. - How? He hammered his Ninety-five Theses on the door of All Saints' Church, Wittenberg - What did the theses attack? They attacked the Papal sale of Indulgences. - What are Indulgences? To answer that - the only way - you would need a sensible knowledge of Western Christendom's doctrine on sin, and its quid pro quo recompense for sin. 2 hours ago, SoulMonster said: absurd religious beliefs You'd make a very poor historian with language like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Kasanova King said: I don't go from "I love them" to "Hallelujah!". Although there are times that make me feel that way after being with him...more along the lines of being grateful to God for him. Hehe, I was more thinking about your comment that you felt the love was 'spiritual'. How do you go from marvelling at the intensity of love to something supernatural? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said: You'd make a very poor historian with language like that. I probably wouldn't refer to theism as nonsense if I lectured a history class I would if I was sitting on the panel reviewing the curriculum, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 51 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: Hehe, I was more thinking about your comment that you felt the love was 'spiritual'. How do you go from marvelling at the intensity of love to something supernatural? It's one and the same for me, I guess. Don't really know how to put it into words, tbh. Anything I say won't make much sense to you anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: It's one and the same for me, I guess. Don't really know how to put it into words, tbh. Anything I say won't make much sense to you anyway. Yeah but that's just the tequila. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Dazey said: Yeah but that's just the tequila. Meh, I've been sober lately. I need a good night of drinking soon...and I'm sure ya'll will notice.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazey Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, Kasanova King said: Meh, I've been sober lately. I need a good night of drinking soon...and I'm sure ya'll will notice.... I've still not forgiven you for making me do shots in Vegas. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 hour ago, SoulMonster said: I probably wouldn't refer to theism as nonsense if I lectured a history class I would if I was sitting on the panel reviewing the curriculum, though. If we edited a curriculum according to our own belief structures, there would not be much left to study! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, Dazey said: I've still not forgiven you for making me do shots in Vegas. Peer pressure at its finest. The look on your face after the shots....I think you turned a shade of white I've never seen before.... I think you held it down though........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 13 minutes ago, Kasanova King said: It's one and the same for me, I guess. Don't really know how to put it into words, tbh. Anything I say won't make much sense to you anyway. Well, for me it makes no sense to go from marvelling at something, whether that is love or beauty or a rainbow, to thinking there must be a god. And it is not just me, there simply is no logic to it. We have good, rational explanations for these things, yet even if we didn't it wouldn't excuse bringing in the supernatural. Only if the supernatural had been demonstrated to be a valid explanation on other phenomena would it make sense to even consider it as an option. But as it is, we have no reason to believe in anything supernatural and hence it really shouldn't be considered whenever we encounter anything profoundly fantastic. Experience has taught us there is a natural explanation. Which is of course more fulfilling. When something has come to be through natural means, that is more impressive than if it was created by hocus pocus by an almighty entity. Love isn't just something a god has given us, and end of discussion, but a human behaviour that must have been formed through exciting mechanisms of evolution that can be studied and understood. A rainbow isn't just something a god decided to add to beautify the skies, but a phenomenon if physics which speaks of the nature of light and its scattering. And so on. So no, being awed by something and then dismissing any natural explanations in favor of the supernatural, not only makes no sense, but is also a lazy and boring explanation. And people wouldn't make this mistake if they weren't religiously primed to make it. If through their upbringing they hadn't been psychologically conditioned to make that particular thinking error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Nova Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: Well, for me it makes no sense to go from marvelling at something, whether that is love or beauty or a rainbow, to thinking there must be a god. And it is not just me, there simply is no logic to it. We have good, rational explanations for these things, yet even if we didn't it wouldn't excuse bringing in the supernatural. Only if the supernatural had been demonstrated to be a valid explanation on other phenomena would it make sense to even consider it as an option. But as it is, we have no reason to believe in anything supernatural and hence it really shouldn't be considered whenever we encounter anything profoundly fantastic. Experience has taught us there is a natural explanation. Which is of course more fulfilling. When something has come to be through natural means, that is more impressive than if it was created by hocus pocus by an almighty entity. Love isn't just something a god has given us, and end of discussion, but a human behaviour that must have been formed through exciting mechanisms of evolution that can be studied and understood. A rainbow isn't just something a god decided to add to beautify the skies, but a phenomenon if physics which speaks of the nature of light and its scattering. And so on. So no, being awed by something and then dismissing any natural explanations in favor of the supernatural, not only makes no sense, but is also a lazy and boring explanation. And people wouldn't make this mistake if they weren't religiously primed to make it. If through their upbringing they hadn't been psychologically conditioned to make that particular thinking error. I feel for you, if that's the way you feel. Maybe someday you will have a truly spiritual experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: If we edited a curriculum according to our own belief structures, there would not be much left to study! It has nothing to do with belief structures but a serious concern that more historically important facts would by sacrificd to fill the students' heads with idiotic theological differencs. Suffice to say that various sects had disagreements regarding doctrine. Which they are so apt to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, Kasanova King said: I feel for you, if that's the way you feel. Maybe someday you will have a truly spiritual experience. No reason to feel for me, I am a well-adjusted and happy person with a good life. I don't miss irrationality in my life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OmarBradley Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said: Soul, you simply cannot ever understand the 16th and 17th century unless you understand the theological differences between Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism - and to a lesser extent Anglicanism and Anabaptism. Here is the easiest way I can put it, - What is 16th century European history usually named? Usually the 'Renaissance and Reformation'? - Who triggered the latter? Martin Luther in 1517. - How? He hammered his Ninety-five Theses on the door of All Saints' Church, Wittenberg - What did the theses attack? They attacked the Papal sale of Indulgences. - What are Indulgences? To answer that - the only way - you would need a sensible knowledge of Western Christendom's doctrine on sin, and its quid pro quo recompense for sin. The answers to those questions are fairly standard material for even high school European history courses. They're certainly discussed in undergraduate history courses, as they are all major historical items from 16th century Western Europe. The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is not a significant detail. To equate such a minor detail with indulgence selling, the name of the period, Martin Luther, etc. is a bit absurd. IMO, the question which began this argument has no place in a standard high school or undergraduate European history course. Graduate European History, perhaps. Theology/religious studies, certainly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dontdamnmeuyi2015 Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Okay will we ever know for sure? So why should we care? Humans have enough shit to deal with in their lives without thinking about other shit that will only confuse us more than we already are. Dude, we are born, we live and then we die! End of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 17 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: It has nothing to do with belief structures but a serious concern that more historically important facts would by sacrificd to fill the students' heads with idiotic theological differencs. Suffice to say that various sects had disagreements regarding doctrine. Which they are so apt to do. The ''students' heads'' will be embellished with a knowledge of reformation sectarianism which they will then study in its correct context, the reformation era. You make it sound like they are being proselytised to, as if, by studying say the 17th century witch-hunts or the 20th century Third Reich they will leave class believing in witches and espousing Nazism! A serious student of the reformation needs to understand the doctrinal differences which includes some quite weight theological issues. There is no other way. Few aspects of early-modern European history remain unaffected by religion - medieval history also. 11 minutes ago, OmarBradley said: The answers to those questions are fairly standard material for even high school European history courses. They're certainly discussed in undergraduate history courses, as they are all major historical items from 16th century Western Europe. The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is not a significant detail. To equate such a minor detail with indulgence selling, the name of the period, Martin Luther, etc. is a bit absurd. IMO, the question which began this argument has no place in a standard high school or undergraduate European history course. Graduate European History, perhaps. Theology/religious studies, certainly. True but I was simplifying it for Soul's pea head. Regarding your second paragraph, I do not agree in the slightest. Edited October 28, 2017 by DieselDaisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: The ''students' heads'' will be embellished with a knowledge of reformation sectarianism which they will then study in its correct context, the reformation era. You make it sound like they are being proselytised to, as if, by studying say the 17th century witch-hunts or the 20th century Third Reich they will leave class believing in witches and espousing Nazism! A serious student of the reformation needs to understand the doctrinal differences which includes some quite weight theological issues. There is no other way. Few aspects of early-modern European history remain unaffected by religion - medieval history also. True but I was simplifying it for Soul's pea head. Regarding your second paragraph, I do not agree in the slightest. I checked all the history courses lectured at my former university. None of them dealt with the Reformation only, but plenty covered that time period. Reading about each of these courses, they typically dealt with the religious scism of the period but I absolutely did not get the impression it went in much detail on transubstantiation/consubstantiation at all, and especially not to the extent that the students would be expected to write an essay on that detail. I am not doubting it was like this when you were a student, but I think it would be a gross mismanagement of the time available for the course. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 14 minutes ago, SoulMonster said: I checked all the history courses lectured at my former university. None of them dealt with the Reformation only, but plenty covered that time period. Reading about each of these courses, they typically dealt with the religious scism of the period but I absolutely did not get the impression it went in much detail on transubstantiation/consubstantiation at all, and especially not to the extent that the students would be expected to write an essay on that detail. I am not doubting it was like this when you were a student, but I think it would be a gross mismanagement of the time available for the course. Oh well. You misread me. I didn't just study the reformation - you do not just study one thing on British history courses! I disagree. I was fascinated by the theological aspects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 York's, fairly typical, https://www.york.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/ba-history/#content_year_1 From Rome to the Renaissance: The Transformation of Traditional Societies, c.400-1650 Citizens, Comrades and Consumers: The Making of the Modern World, 1650-present Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: You misread me. I didn't just study the reformation - you do not just study one thing on British history courses! So which text book was used in the course where you were expected to lear enough detail about transubstantiation/consubstantiation to be able to write a 500 word essay on that particular topic? I can probably find it in my uni library. Edited October 28, 2017 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 My post disappeared. I asked which textbook was used in the course where you were expected to be able to write a 500 word essay on transubstantiation/consubstantiation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, SoulMonster said: So which text book was used in the course where you were expected to lear enough detail about transubstantiation/consubstantiation to be able to write a 500 word essay on that particular topic? I can probably find it in my uni library. How am I expected to remember that? I think it was a dry texty affair, the type of thing you discard in a charity shop when finished. I did find Diarmaid MacCulloch's book on the reformation handy at the time and still like it today; if you want to broaden your horizons beyond petri dishes, I would recommend any of his books (albeit, his politically correct habit of renaming the 'British Isles' the 'Atlantic Isles'' got on my tits). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said: How am I expected to remember that? Even bad students who don't remember much content tend to remember the name of their text books. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 Just now, SoulMonster said: Even bad students who don't remember much content tend to remember the name of their text books. Oh well. Nonsense. I remember the cover so I'll hunt for it on amazon if you are so obsessed at owning this book. Are you wanting to indulge in some ''idiotic nonsense''? Perhaps you'll become a dour Presbyterian! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 28, 2017 Share Posted October 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said: Nonsense. I remember the cover so I'll hunt for it on amazon if you are so obsessed at owning this book. Are you wanting to indulge in some ''idiotic nonsense''? Perhaps you'll become a dour Presbyterian! No need, I can just ask Professor Ditchfield to confirm he actually expects his students to be that knowledgeable on the theological schsm in an introductory course on European history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.