Skip to comments.Genghis misunderstood
Posted on 10/03/2006 11:15:52 AM PDT by JZelle
click here to read article
Ghenghis Khan was a remarkable individual who kicked human civilization in the teeth and put it back to work.
Good to get them out of the way.
Nothing wrong with a few dozen Ghengis Khan statues ~ mount him on a small horse.
So your reasoned, scientific approach to historical figures you don't approve of is to attempt to airbrush them from history?
Hmm, must try this myself. I don't like Mohammad. He is the father of a deathcult only too well known to FReepers. And so I apply your method to history and - shazam! He's gone! Mohammad never existed! What a satisfying way to deal with uncomfortable facts!
No, Jesus' existence is attested to with a greater body of personal eyewitnesses than just about anyone for the next thousand years.
Actually, there's no evidence outside of the Koran and the Hadiths that Mohammad ever existed.
> your reasoned, scientific approach to historical figures you don't approve of is to attempt to airbrush them from history
Nice try at a strawman. Inaccurate, flawed, and plain wrong... but nice anyway.
> Mohammad never existed!
If you say so. However, the record of his existence is substantially greater than that for Christ.
Ah, its more than that my friend. There's no evidence outside of a whole load of obviously faked coins and correspondence - and some bigass monuments - that Julius Caesar ever existed! Man this is so coool!
> those are generally people much more relevant to the US than Khan.
That's debatable. I've seen lots of statues of, for example, Poles who came to America to help fight in the Revolution (Casimir Pulasky and whatnot). These people ahve a tendency to be almost *entirely* irrelevant to the bulk of American history... certainly nowhere near as important as Ghengis. Had some minor European army Major not come to the US and gotten shot dead in his first battle, the US would almost certainly still exist, perhaps with no recognizable changes. Had the Khans not existed, the US probably wouldn't either... except as part of the greater World Caliphate.
Nevertheless, these minor Euro figures are relevant to the people who actually paid for the statue - typically the Poles in Chicago, the Italians in New York, whoever.
Julius Caesar lived long before Jesus.
Outside of the emperors, there's little attestation that anybody at all existed in those days. When it comes to the coins, not every emperor (particularly in later years in the Western Empire) got his face on one, and even some of the emperors on coins may be spurious.
They just didn't keep records in the old days like we do today.
Turns out Jesus' existence is attested to by the four major Gospel writers, as well as by others whose witness is included in those Gospels, or in letters by Peter and Paul that refer to the testimony of others.
During that period of time not another ordinary individual in Palestine has left behind any records at all beyond little carvings on graves.
I love that one scene when Mongolians threw that baseball it was grenade LOL!
Yes, I also vote for a statue of Vlad the Impaler.
I hearing that they going set up statue or muserem for Vlad the Implaer the real Dracula
I hope you understand that I raise these schizoid denials as a reductio absurdum of OBB's apparent assumption that the Person who has formed human history was invented by the Gospel writers. Eleven out of twelve of the Apostles died in agony attesting for the truth of the Gospels. If Jesus never existed then one of the many questions one would have to ask - why would they make this stuff up?
> As a matter of principal, however, if the Mongolians want to pay for and put a statue, I see no problem with it.
Agreed. If some Russian immigrants want a stature of Stalin... hey, pay the artist to cast it up for you, and stick it on your lawn. Putting it in the public square.... ummm, no.
> you were right all along
You are on the road to wisdom, young Padawan.
> the Person who has formed human history ...
Werner von Braun? Archimedes? Gilgamesh?
> Eleven out of twelve of the Apostles died in agony...
According to whom?
> If Jesus never existed then one of the many questions one would have to ask - why would they make this stuff up?
How did Joseph Smith die? How did Marshall Applewhite die? How about David Koresh?
He was a murderous thug on a horse, little better than a Blood or a Crip.
I'm talking about two kingdoms that Chingghis waged offensive war against, one of which he attacked to flank the Chin on their western [undefended] border prior to his offensive war against the Chinese.
I'm as great an admirer of the Yakka Mongols as you'll find, but facts are facts. Once Temujin united the tribes, he waged several wars of aggression, two at least [Hsia Hsia and the Chin] without cause. Kara Khitai had been taken over by Gukluk, a Naiman opponent, and the Khwarism Shah murdered a Mongol Ambassador, which was a casus belli. But Hsia Hsia was atacked for its location, and the Chin were attacked for their wealth.
Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.
Didn't Josephus describe him in detail in "The Jewish War"? Do you deem Josephus unreliable on this point, and if so, why?
> Didn't Josephus describe him in detail in "The Jewish War"?
Nope. From "Antiquities of the Jews:"
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."
That's not a whole lot of detail. That's also more like someone accurately recording the beliefs of another group. It should be noted that Josephus himself was *not* a Christian but a Jew; thus he was obviously not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (or otherwise... he'd be a Christian).
As to whether Josephus was unreliable... seems unlikely. However, it's true that he neither recounted great detail unavailable from the first four books of the NT, and neither was the information available to *him* sufficient to cause him to believe.
Consider: assume a group of people who believed in Alien Superfriends In Shiny Gold UFO's (Asisgufoians) came to your town. The local paper described them and their beliefs in factual terms. Let's say their belief was that John Wayne was sent to Earth as the only begotton son of the Galactic Overlord. Now, if the local paper reported that "the Asisgufoians believe that John Wayne was sent to Earth as the only begotton son of the Galactic Overlord," does that lend credence to their belief? Or does that simply describe what their belief is?
That there were Christians in 93 AD is not exactly a shocking revelation.
Thug on a horse, one of many throughout history
So did Alexander the Great, most generals of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar, the previously mentioned Richard I [at least Chingghis spent a good deal of his time in his kingdom], the Crusaders, the Muslims, Tamerlane, Napoleon, and all the happy Christian participants [both sides] in the Thirty Years War. So when it comes to horses in history, climb down off yours.
Compared to western "civilization" [remember Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin?], Chingghis Quan is small change. And the pluses of his Empire outweigh the minuses.
oohps! my mistake!
Tx. for the info.
Are you seriously taking the position that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure?
That's a view that seems to be held only by an extreme minority of historians. Extreme in size and ideology.
So you say. Temugin was a murderous bastard whose appologists have made him something he wasn't. Other's sins don't wash away his.
> Are you seriously taking the position that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure?
No. Just the position that the evidence for his existence is extremely thin, and nowhere near as strong as for Khan. Plus, the reports of Ghengis describe Just A Guy. The reports for Jesus describe Magical Super Powers. It is never unwise to be highly skeptical of reports of Magical Super Powers.
But within the scope of history, he's no worse than many of the figures lionized in western history. Only more successful.
Unfortunately a lot of people do a lot of outright dismissing and call it "skepticism" for the sake of sounding high-minded and lofty.
I love threads like these.
YES but is worth to remember that was his GRANDSON HULAGU KHAN
that took Baghdad....
Hulagu probably always intended to take Baghdad, which the Mongols had been meaning to attack for over ten years, but he used the caliph's refusal to send troops to him as a pretext for conquest, since his brother the Great Khan had ordered him to be merciful to those who submitted. Hulagu sent a message to the caliph, Al-Musta'sim, containing the following:
"When I lead my army against Baghdad in anger, whether you hide in heaven or in earth
I will bring you down from the spinning spheres;
I will toss you in the air like a lion.
I will leave no one alive in your realm;
I will burn your city, your land, your self.
If you wish to spare yourself and your venerable family, give heed to my advice with the ear of intelligence. If you do not, you will see what God has willed."
When can they get started?
The world famous excommunicate, Martin Luther, is honored at Thomas Circle, and one of the tallest statues in the city honors South America's Great Liberator, Simon Bolivar.And Gandhi and Churchill. Over the Supreme Court are Moses, Mohammed, Solon, Hammurabai, and other famous lawgivers. There's an Italian church with statues of Dante, Michaelangelo, Verdi, and Marconi.
Other statues include Joan of Arc; Jose Artigas, the father of Uruguayan independence; Ukrainian poet Taras Shevchenko; and French artist Louis Daguerre.
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Note: this topic is dated 10/03/2006.
Heh. Reminds me of a bit Cracked Online did about movie bad guys: They were just misunderstood.
Take the Wicked Witch of the West. Dorothy killed her sister, albeit accidentally, but then made off with the Witch’s rightful inheritance, the ruby slippers (an idea that was suggested by a strange deity carrying a stick in a bubble that floated into the village). Dorothy runs to the nearest pliable legal authority in the person of a large bag full of light and smoke to obtain legal title to the shoes she absconded, and was subsequently ordered to murder the put-upon grieving sister in order to buy a balloon ticket somewhere.
While the Witch attempted to recover her lost sentimental property, Dorothy hatched an ad-hoc scheme to KILL the Witch with a bucket of water. She even engaged in a conspiracy dreamed up by her three confederates who broke into the Witch’s home by committing Assault and Battery on three of the Witch’s private security detail. What’s worse, they subjected the victims of their crime to ridicule by using their clothing as cover for their nefarious deeds, leaving them naked off-site.
But, in Dorothy’s defense, she didn’t incur the wrath of PETA by using flying monkeys to help her retrieve a pair of stupid red pumps that were lousy footwear for a miles-long journey on a road made of yellow bricks anyway. A journey made longer, by the way, by starting at the center of spiral flagstone pattern. She did get to enjoy the pleasure of getting really stoned on opium poppies. Yay, um, Dorothy.