RE:History..
by Cape Comorin on Sep 20, 2007 03:30 PM Permalink
Generally history does not believe in scriptures of any religion. History is written based on evidences such as arhaeological evidences, etc. If history is to be written based on scripture then there should be evidences to proved what is described in the scripture. Otherwise there will be no difference between history and religious texts.
RE:History..
by Cape Comorin on Sep 20, 2007 03:40 PM Permalink
You are wrong. Only known (with the help of artifacts) earliest civilization is harappa civlization which is mentioned in the history. It also talks about ice-age, stone-age which is not pertaining to bible.
RE:RE:History..
by Seshadri on Sep 20, 2007 03:53 PM Permalink
Christian scholars have centred their history around the birth of jesus... here in India we base it on "The Salivahana era"...
Archealogical evidence is something which shows the biological nature of human/animal living in a specific period... Moreover, if any objects were to be found, we can only infer and not conclude from it...
Also, it does not mean, that archealogical evidence should be the premise to establish our history, if found, they can act as evaluators...
Absence of archealogical evidence does not negate anything...
RE:History..
by JGN on Sep 20, 2007 04:00 PM Permalink
Hi Mr. Seshadri, glad to meet you again. The below mentioned quote by Mr. Bertrand Russell answers your question:
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others -
RE:History..
by Cape Comorin on Sep 20, 2007 04:00 PM Permalink
Archaelogical evidences give some proof about what was there and what happened. Off course it does not negate anything but to include something in the history some proofs are required. But religious texts are only based on beliefs and cannot be considered as solid proofs. As many historians are christians you are thinking that they include all the biblical events in history. You are absolutely wrong.
RE:History..
by Cape Comorin on Sep 20, 2007 03:49 PM Permalink
You meant to say school book history is about animals. I could not understand what you are talking about.
RE:History..
by JGN on Sep 20, 2007 03:48 PM Permalink
To be thoroughly religious, one must, I believe, be sorely disappointed. One's faith in God increases as one's faith in the world decreases. The happier the man, the farther he is from God - George Jean Nathan
RE:RE:History..
by Seshadri on Sep 20, 2007 03:55 PM Permalink
Welcome JGN, the quote refers to the philosophical bent of mind, based on what one's mind perveives as GOD
RE:History..
by Ganesh on Sep 21, 2007 02:40 PM Permalink
Dear Cape Comorin, are you aware of the fact that history can be twisted. Max Mueller was paid 4pounds per page to create the history of Aryan Invasion in India for the sole purpose of dividing north and south. This has been genetically proved that the north indians and south indians have the same genetical properties which determine we determine to the same race. There was no aryan race period. Google Aryan and you will find proof. Pls see the site francoisgautier.com where he has written articles about India and how outsiders have manipulated Indians and are still doing it. So History can also be created to suit those in power as Britain was the mainstay of History in English and they did manipulate Indian History. There is a lot of dispute about acccepted faiths of Christianity - about reality of Christ, his resurrection, correct date of christmas etc , there are also debates on the so called visit of spirit to Mohammed (Gabriel- an english name - why not Hanif or any muslim as Allah is supposedly muslim) so a lot of historically accepted happenings are being questioned and sometimes by clever poturing twisted. In spite of real time videos there are theories about the twin tower collapse by manipulative theorists with vested interests. So pls do not accept historical statement also. As over a period of time even history has been distorted
