Is world history filled with lies and deception?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Scott said:
I did. And my question still stands. What scientific advancement has made intellectuals declare that the Bible is not “historically accurate”?
Click to expand...
thats the stand of your religion. its better for you to ask your priests. you will believe it coming from them. 🙂
 
Robert_Sock said:
What are your views on the accuracy of world history? My view is the it’s filled with lies and deception.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean.

We do have considerable knowledge of facts that constitute, as such, the historical truth: typically, it is the spin on those facts that betray whatever edifying truth might be implicated or drawn from those facts.

For instance, an objective study of any human history -whether an individual people or society, or of all humanity taken as whole- should result in someone having no opposition, at least prima facie, to the Church’s doctrine on original sin; one might, however, suspect that the doctrine was e.g. an attempt to rationally explain (or explain away) the facts of history. Notwithstanding, today we find that history can be presented in such a wise that it appears as if humanity inevitably and even necessarily makes moral and social progress, in spite of admitted or granted periodic set-backs. This presentation of history generally results in the individual imagining that past generations were necessarily inferior -in practically every conceivable category- to the present one, which itself will necessarily be inferior to the next one. Consequently, we find this absurdly naive and superficial view that (social) change is always and necessarily a good thing, so long as it is different from anything (done or practised) in the past. This is one presentation of history that is effectively deceptive and constitutes a monstrous lie.

Anyone who studies, e.g., the history of European warfare will notice that as Christendom disintegrated the wars became proportionately more barbaric. Today, we could scarcely imagine, e.g., general society taking little or no interest or concern in a violent change of government, with practically no one participating in the physical fighting to engineer a (or that) change (of government). However, when the Tudors (for example) seized power in England, only a few thousand individuals participated in the actual fighting that ended the long-standing (centuries old) familial regime that had ruled England.

The reason for this is simple: a change of government then meant practically nothing actually changed in the daily lives of the people; whereas, as Christendom disintegrated, changes of government -especially violent ones- often meant extreme changes that affected everyone on the most intimate level of their lives and had serious implications for their deepest, core beliefs, customs and traditions. It comes as a shock to moderns that the modern concept of the division of society between two opposed (set of) principles -liberal or consvertative- never existed before the Enlightenment. Now, people were of course still divided on certain subejcts or issues, but the core beliefs of society were shared not only on a/the “national” level, but even across many different nations and cultures (Christendom). Manifestly this sort of division at the heart of society cannot possibly be conceived as moral or social progress, whether you’re a liberal or a conservative.

This process most evidently culminates in terms of traditional or physical (as opposed to what we might call modern cultural) warfare in World Wars I and II, which can rightly be described as insane, truly fratricidal warfare.

With Communism, we found entire nations/peoples effectively erased or eliminated -not because of some horrible natural disaster, or even totally by genocide, but by a totally human and systematic elimination of that (traditional) culture, (even by members of that culture), replacing it with something completely new and different. We saw this in many Eastern European countries, but we see it still in China. Today our idea of what constitutes a people has become utterly superficial: i.e., a purely physical (as opposed to spiritual or rational) continuity: again, this is evidently not progress.

So while not everyone was actually slaughtered (genocide) with Communism, notwithstanding we saw their cultures completely eradicated- and with it the essence of their being a people. However, not all is lost, because exactly because a people is something more than commonly shared physical attributes, it can come back by imbuing once more the original genius or spirit, if only by immitation at first, and progressively an actualization or re-realization of that original genius or spirit.
 
1AugustSon7 said:
Depends on what you mean.

We do have considerable knowledge of facts that constitute, as such, the historical truth: typically, it is the spin on those facts that betray whatever edifying truth might be implicated or drawn from those facts.

For instance, an objective study of any human history -whether an individual people or society, or of all humanity taken as whole- should result in someone having no opposition, at least prima facie, to the Church’s doctrine on original sin; one might, however, suspect that the doctrine was e.g. an attempt to rationally explain (or explain away) the facts of history. Notwithstanding, today we find that history can be presented in such a wise that it appears as if humanity inevitably and even necessarily makes moral and social progress, in spite of admitted or granted periodic set-backs. This presentation of history generally results in the individual imagining that past generations were necessarily inferior -in practically every conceivable category- to the present one, which itself will necessarily be inferior to the next one. Consequently, we find this absurdly naive and superficial view that (social) change is always and necessarily a good thing, so long as it is different from anything (done or practised) in the past. This is one presentation of history that is effectively deceptive and constitutes a monstrous lie.

Anyone who studies, e.g., the history of European warfare will notice that as Christendom disintegrated the wars became proportionately more barbaric. Today, we could scarcely imagine, e.g., general society taking little or no interest or concern in a violent change of government, with practically no one participating in the physical fighting to engineer a (or that) change (of government). However, when the Tudors (for example) seized power in England, only a few thousand individuals participated in the actual fighting that ended the long-standing (centuries old) familial regime that had ruled England.

The reason for this is simple: a change of government then meant practically nothing actually changed in the daily lives of the people; whereas, as Christendom disintegrated, changes of government -especially violent ones- often meant extreme changes that affected everyone on the most intimate level of their lives and had serious implications for their deepest, core beliefs, customs and traditions. It comes as a shock to moderns that the modern concept of the division of society between two opposed (set of) principles -liberal or consvertative- never existed before the Enlightenment. Now, people were of course still divided on certain subejcts or issues, but the core beliefs of society were shared not only on a/the “national” level, but even across many different nations and cultures (Christendom). Manifestly this sort of division at the heart of society cannot possibly be conceived as moral or social progress, whether you’re a liberal or a conservative.

This process most evidently culminates in terms of traditional or physical (as opposed to what we might call modern cultural) warfare in World Wars I and II, which can rightly be described as insane, truly fratricidal warfare.

With Communism, we found entire nations/peoples effectively erased or eliminated -not because of some horrible natural disaster, or even totally by genocide, but by a totally human and systematic elimination of that (traditional) culture, (even by members of that culture), replacing it with something completely new and different. We saw this in many Eastern European countries, but we see it still in China. Today our idea of what constitutes a people has become utterly superficial: i.e., a purely physical (as opposed to spiritual or rational) continuity: again, this is evidently not progress.

So while not everyone was actually slaughtered (genocide) with Communism, notwithstanding we saw their cultures completely eradicated- and with it the essence of their being a people. However, not all is lost, because exactly because a people is something more than commonly shared physical attributes, it can come back by imbuing once more the original genius or spirit, if only by immitation at first, and progressively an actualization or re-realization of that original genius or spirit.
Click to expand...
I see history as being tainted by secret covenants between nations that never get discussed in history books. I believe these covenants were a part of history over the course of ancient history. I also believe these secrets have tainted history as it is written today. For example, I believe there existed a secret covenant between that Soviet and the Western allies that severely distorted modern history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top