Friday, January 29, 2010

Random Jibberings, most likely

I was going to rant, so it's probably fortunate for you Yankees who read this that I chose not to. heh

Kate and I also discussed blogging a few in a short series about the UN Reaction to the Rwanda Genocide of 1994, but that was also nixed, due to the cruelty and slaughter that was present during the incident.

AS such, other than adding to the Apostle Paul, which I don't feel like doing, what is there to say?

Thus, if you readers would be so obliged, perhaps post comments on what You would like to see, and perhaps we may cover it in the future.

And now to continue on with random historical facts and discussion. I was reading over a friend's shoulder, the other day, regarding a facebook quiz that he was taking. Now you must understand that both he and I are avid WWII followers, and so we were dismayed when he only got 60% right. We carefully scrutinized the remnants of that perfidious quiz and realized the fact that the author didn't actually know what he was talking about. :P We should have been aware with several spelling errors, but the options were reasonable and we chose what actually were the correct answers.

For example, if I recall correctly, it appears that the answer 'Operation Sea Lion' was 'wrong', according to the quiz. However, the question stated "What was the code name of Hitler's proposed invasion of England..." Jeepers criminy, any person who appreciates history should know that, don't you think?

Another blatant indicator was the question, "Which British battleship was sunk in a mere 3 minutes by the German battleship Bismark in the Battle of Denmark Strait?"
the chap obviously doesn't realize that the the battle began at 0552, and the deadly hit on the HMS Hood was inflicted at roughly 0600. What the chap should mean is that the HMS Hood sunk less than three minutes after being hit. -_- And long after both the Bismark and Prinz Eugen were both seriously damaged (though still operational).

and what does this look like to you?

A Schmeisser submachine gun, no? It seems that this chap who created the quiz disagrees. :P

And then there was a ridiculous question regarding an airfield in Guadalcanal. An American airstrip, no less, that they later abandoned. To see this quiz, one would think the war revolved around Guadalcanal.

Well that's all for now. Cheers.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

The Apostle Paul/Saul

This was actually for a class, but who cares? It's hopefully a good paper, anyway, and it's historical.

A man sat in a cell and scribbled away using a feather quill. Who was he? Where was he? What was he doing and how did he get there? This paper is going to tell all about that. The paper is going to talk about when he roughly lived and died, what he studied to be, how he was converted into Christianity. where he traveled. He was Paul; he called himself the apostle to the Gentiles.
Paul lived from about 5 B.C to around 67 A. D. His mother gave birth to him in Tarsus, a city in Syria. Paul was a good student and fast learner (taught by Rabbi Gameliel from Jerusalem) and one of the better known apostles. He studied to be a teacher. He also learned to make tents. Tent making combined with teaching was a very good profession.

Paul used to persecute Christians. He witnessed the death of Saint Stephen. Stephen was stoned to death. The saint was stoned for giving a speech of reprimand to the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). The then un-reformed Paul held the cloaks for the people who did the stoning.

His conversion to Christianity happened on the road to Damascus. He was going toward Damascus to try to find Christians to imprision (see Acts 9). The Lord made a bright light go down from heaven and Paul was blinded by it. There were some men with Paul, and they also saw the light. God also asked why Paul was persecuting Him. Paul belived that Jesus was the Son of God. Paul was blinded for three days. A man called Ananis (who was a disciple of God) went to Paul’s rooms and touched Paul’s face. After that, Paul could see again.

His friends were shocked at the sudden change that had taken hold of Paul. Later, he escaped through an opening in the wall in a basket. He spent three years in Arabia either as a missionary or to think about his theological thoughts.
Paul went to Jersualem to bring an offering. [couldn’t find who had provided the money] While he was there, he met Barnabus. Barnabus took him to the other disciples. Paul debated and talked freely with the people in the city until they tried to kill him. At that point, the apostles sent him to Tarsus.
He went to Antioch with Barnabus, Judas (also called Barsabbas), and Silas. The apostles and elders sent a letter with the four of them. (Acts 15). They taught at Antioch for a while.

Paul confronted Peter with the issue of Peter acting differently around different people. (Galatians 2:11-14) He also got angry at Barnabus—and Barnabus at Paul—over who to take with them on a journey. Paul wanted John to stay behind because John had left them in Pamphylia and did not continue to work with them. Paul took Silas and left. He want through Syria and Cilica. in order to strengthen the churches.
When Paul arrived at Rome, he lived by himself. A soldier was made to guard him. Paul had to preach in Rome under guard. Paul told of how, even though he was innocent, he was arrested in Jerusalem. That is how the book of Acts ends.

He also established churches in Rome, Corinth, and various other cities. Paul and
Barnabus were thought to be gods at one point; Paul was called Hermes and Barnabus was called Zeus. He probably died from beheading or from old age. Paul wrote thirteen epistles (letters) to various churches. He also used his Roman citizenship to spread the Gospel to all areas of the Roman empire. Sometimes, though, he was caught (Acts 22) and punished. Once, he was shipwrecked. Paul made four missionary trips.

Monday, January 4, 2010

Crusades Cont.

Ah, they were at that, Kate, but they were so much more. When one considers the immediate history surrounding the Crusades, one will discover that 'cities back' are key words.

You see, the Roman Empire split into two, leaving the Roman and Byzantine sections. The Byzantine Empire became stronger while Rome was weakened by war, poor rulers and corruption, as well as barbarians. Eventually, Rome fell, leaving the Byzantine Empire as a remaining power with a plethora of Arabic enemies. Throughout its history, it had perpatually been fending off Islam and Arabic people. In the Byzantine-Arab wars (starting at 634 AD), the Christian Byzantium lost a excessive territory to the Arabs.

Under the rulers Rashidan and Umuyyad, the Islamic faction consumed (by warfare) what had previously been Christian or peaceful African land. Any defence that could be thrown together fell easily before the rampaging Moslems. North Africa, Persia, Sindh (India) all were lost by 736AD.

In all of this time, Constantinople held out, which, naturally, aggravated the aggressive Moslem Armies.

However, the Moslems weren't finished. No, from there, they proceeded into Christian Europe. They took Italy, the Caucauses, the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal), the Pyrenees and even parts of the Bulgarian Empire. The Moslems, in fact, advanced into what was then France and the German States. Only Charles Martel had an army large enough to prevent them from proceeding, and, miraculously, he did prevent the Islams from consuming all of Continental Europe, earning the nickname, 'The Hammer'.

This is all wrapped up by 950. Only small heros and forces stood to face the triumphant Muslims in those conquered countries, as can be seen by the Spanish folklore hero 'El Cid', and his small guerrila army of which bravely fought the Moor despots.

Maybe, once realizing the surrounding conquests, one can see why the Christians finally united into one army in order to gain back what had been theirs and to protect the Holy Land.

There is one last item that must be mentioned of the background of the first Crusade. Jerusalem fell from the Byzantine Empire. 3,000 Christian Pilgrims were slaughtered, and the Christian churches were desecrated.

Are the Christian forces not justified in taking back that of which is rightfully theirs? When people state the the Crusades were a bloodbath "Instigated by Christianity". or a 'Foolhardy religious conflict', it irritates me to no extent. That person obviously does not realize how close Europe came to being completely subjugated.

It is true that the Armies of Europe, once running rampant, committed many deeds they should not have while flying the Christian standard. However, as a whole, the Christians were justified and thus not 'religious fanatics fought by religious fanatics against comparatively peaceful Moslems. ' Thus, if you ever hear this, remember who actually instigated the fight. Remember that there hasn't been 'more evil in the world instigated in religion', which is then immediately drawn to the Crusades as an attempt at an argument.

And also remember, that, while our soldiers performed some deeds they were often later ashamed of, brutal and cruel warfare was regular in the Medievil Ages - consider what the Moslems did to the People's Crusade.

That's all for now. Cheers