|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jun 3, 2012 18:08:38 GMT -5
He really wasn't a bad guy and Lord knows he was interesting!  |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 5, 2012 9:47:42 GMT -5
He really wasn't a bad guy and Lord knows he was interesting! No one, but no one but CC made the decision to do what he did. If he's not proud of his stance, to stand in defense of it and go toe to toe to defend it with the evidence he has at hand, that's not our problem, its his. There was, nor is there, or will there ever be anyone here who will ever say to him that he doesn't know what he's talking about - with the one and only exception that he or anyone else doesn't try to defend their position with only a belief line, only enough for a Jesuit to take umbrage with the Moslem who's belief is different. Sure what it does come down to is belief for all of us, but those of us who have done our own homework at least share why we believe as we do, else how can there ever be a discussion on any discussion board anywhere other than reafirming the faith, worshipping the same, and proclaiming who's faith is more correct than another? And that is not what any discussion board anywhere is all about. Having said the above, there are those of the opposite persuasion, who's know all, see all methods classify anyone else who doesn't entirely agree with them as stupid, heathen hero worshipping primates with low intelligence not worthy of their time or efforts. And anyone, friend, foe or cheerleader, town drunk who disagrees with them hasn't the right to be a hypocritical jerk and criticize or chastise them. Yet their own crazy, self serving hypocrisy for thinking they are the only ones correct about the events, people and tactics surrounding the LBH battle adds misplaced detail and gives idiotic substance where none ever existed, however whimsical and perverted a history it is. In CC we had the opposite of a hero worshipper. And I for one would rather see that in someone, than someone who would proclaim and promote someone to saint hood. None of those men who died or lived deserved that. I guess what would have to be said about this is, what is, or who would have the right to classify what would constitute a legitimate conversation, intelligent discussion or reasonable questions? And would anyone, so appointed, be more correct in making the right assumption than anyone else? I know I tried to get him to quote a source for his beliefs, but all anyone here ever got out of him was his belief's and nothing more. So who was more narrow minded? Who was more intelligent? And who had more legitimate claim to make their point? I certainly won't, nor will I ever make the claim that I had a better basis of discussion on those points than he did. What I didn't allow him to do, and the only thing I ever made him conform to was the rules of this forum, and I did ban him for name calling, however briefly it was, as I felt his was mostly formed from frustration than from any other undesireable source. Who is then to say what is nonsense? And likewise, what would become of any conversation where one person controls the conversation where he or she classify's someone else's banter or questions as BS in lieu of being reasonably intelligent in regard for the rules of this forum? What might seem foolish to one person might not be foolish to another, and this has led to many a misunderstanding and much infighting on other boards. The question then was, in CC's case, were any of us trying to force CC to take sides with our own beliefs? And when he refused, what did we really expect him to do? This site, nor should any other have such an agenda. And it certainly was not my agenda to force him, one way or another, to make any decision that would be against his own free will or choice. And I think I can speak for everyone here, that they wouldn't be so inclined to do so either. It was, as I think it was, an attempt to understand the motives for his beliefs that caused the end result, and that, sad to say shouldn't have been misinterpreted or taken the way it was, and as something that it most definitely was not. There are those forums where self seeking, over ego inflated creatures seek pathetic flattery and fans for their positions. Naturally theirs being the only glorifyingly correct interpretation of LBH history and all others who disagree being persuaded by slavery nose rings to believe differently than they do. We can all disagree with others interpretations of events, people etc., and we can all disagree with how they present their case. But what of those, like CC, who are only interested in hearing what they want to hear or what they present? How much different is one than the other? How much less important is one way than another, or for that matter, the motives for either? Beleive it or not there is no contrast here and for either to look in the mirror, they might be surpised to find the other looking back at them in the mirror. I feel that at least here, we were civil to CC, and still would be, of that I have no doubt. We didn't act like the big bully know it alls and he knew nothing. It was truely an attempt to understand his views that caused all the problems and his frustration in our attempts at that understanding. We all, whether we like to believe it or not, have prejudices, the difference here I feel is the genuine and real expression of apologies that I personally have witnessed since his own decision to remove himself. Will he return and likewise apologize for his own excesses or lack thereof? What I think distinguishes this forum, unlike others is that we here don't form opinions of other people here, that is reserved for the LBH discussions at hand. And except for politics, where I myself have blundered in the past, those kinds of discussions be left for other ears in other places than here. |
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 6, 2012 13:42:52 GMT -5
Right. If that dude came back tomorrow he would rub most of us the wrong way before nightfall!
|
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 7, 2012 17:58:23 GMT -5
Right. If that dude came back tomorrow he would rub most of us the wrong way before nightfall! I'm not about to judge CC, and I think it unfair that we do. Sure his logic defies what most is believed about that battle, but he does have a right to his opinion. But to not give thought as to how that opinion was formed has caused more problems than it was worth. Its just like me or anyone saying "I hate Benteen." There was a period following it if anyone didn't notice, and nothing else, not even my own motives need be produced as to why. While some would merely ignore anything else I was remiss to state, there would be those who would chime in and then explain why they hated him to. If concensus would have been the reason for me to have stated the hate thing, then why not state why? I have no reason to hate Benteen, Reno or for that matter Custer. But by the same reasoning, I have no reason to deify them, bow down and worship them either. They are dead, all of them, and they deserve better respect than for anyone to think they are still out there somewhere for someone to hate or glorify. Such prejudices only cloud the issues we discuss here with personal bias and prejudice, but when it is brought to the fore by those who want to share it, then it behooves them to explain their position so that misunderstanding can't happen, wont happen and should not happen. Otherwise, its just a "my dad, your dad" moment and nothing ever good comes from that but whose diaper stinks the most. |
|
|
|
Post by stumblingbear on Jun 9, 2012 18:03:24 GMT -5
What is remarkable is the story lines of the two Saints. Each refused to impersonate or be a God of Rome due to their piety. One was imprisoned, one executed. Both of these events occurred in the same year, at the same time of year, in the year 303 AD under the same Emperor, Diocletian. And the connection between St. Nicholas and St. Dasius is? For those who wish Christmas to be more Christ like, I don’t think we have to look much further. For the tradition is rooted deep in Christianity, no matter what the Romans did or didn't do, according to the Catholic church or should we say, what they failed to do. Thank you, truly, for all that you have written. The two Saints story drives home a moral to be remembered for all of us. |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 10, 2012 17:01:47 GMT -5
It was part of an article that I had written for Newsvine several years ago around Christmastime. It was of course more extensive than what I presented here and dealt a lot more with the pagan influences that Mythraism and Saturnalia had to do with the tradition than what one would think. The Christ figure can be traced clear back to Iran 4000 years before his crucifixion, and I won't get into that here except to say the Romans realized this and was one of the reasons they advanced the concept in lieu of Christianities Christ. The story is fascinating in the parallels that occur through history, Dasius being but one of them.
I had a follow up article on the tenets of faith that went back to the first century AD, and no one would believe what I found there. Its so controversial in fact that were I to publish it in any form the basis of belief would have to be changed back to what the early church founders stated in truth about them. And what ultimately became of them due to Papal interpretation over the ages since is pretty startling stuff that makes those fiction stories written about the church look like a two bit Broadway play.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 10, 2012 17:12:23 GMT -5
I know what you mean Sir and you are soooocorrect as to the subject being "controversial!" In fact, as you probably know, the early church fathers opined that Satan himself created all of the various but similar "Christ" scenarios thousands of years ago to confuse and tempt the rightious from the sacred path.
In other words, all of the historical truisms you have just gifted us with were merely pawns in the hands of the devil to confused the brethen. Actually, of course, you spoke of historical events that molded and altered Christianity throughout the years.
Please give us more!
|
|
|
|
Post by whitebull on Jun 10, 2012 20:02:10 GMT -5
It was part of an article that I had written for Newsvine several years ago around Christmastime. It was of course more extensive than what I presented here and dealt a lot more with the pagan influences that Mythraism and Saturnalia had to do with the tradition than what one would think. The Christ figure can be traced clear back to Iran 4000 years before his crucifixion, and I won't get into that here except to say the Romans realized this and was one of the reasons they advanced the concept in lieu of Christianities Christ. The story is fascinating in the parallels that occur through history, Dasius being but one of them. I had a follow up article on the tenets of faith that went back to the first century AD, and no one would believe what I found there. Its so controversial in fact that were I to publish it in any form the basis of belief would have to be changed back to what the early church founders stated in truth about them. And what ultimately became of them due to Papal interpretation over the ages since is pretty startling stuff that makes those fiction stories written about the church look like a two bit Broadway play. Man, Like this is some good stuff! How about giving us some more information about religion. I know some people may get upset but let's put it to a vote and let the majority win! If you really believe in Jesus then nothing posted on this board will stop your belief. I'm not afraid to hear more. Thank you Sir! |
|
|
|
Post by tbw on Jun 12, 2012 20:07:09 GMT -5
Well for me I view it more as history more than anything. I've always liked history, and have had a longstanding love of the subject for as long as I can remember. While others might have been, and likely were viewing biblical and other such writings as "religious", as in sacred, I was always viewing it with an eye towards the historical value than the sacred value. This same thing can be seen in my writings here with regards to the LBH and what I value more, the truth about the history, or some wild, silly notion about those men who fought the battle. The passion for me is not about who was crucified but the history behind it, the reasons for it and the stories that revolve around the back-stories where no one else ever thinks ever to look, like the Gnostics and others who wrote period pieces that told the history more accurately than what has came down to us in the form of something that was whitewashed because it didn't conform to the ethical and moral standards of the day. It's kind of like watching the old Leave it to Beaver tv series day in day out or Davy and Goliath. Such marathons today wouldn't do very well. But take M.A.S.H. reruns or Columbo and put up against them and see which rates better. And even then this is something we still don't comprehend, because the cultural differences even back in 1876 in language parlance doesn't filter down to us because its more basic boring Beaver than it is Peter Falk or Hawkeye Pierce. And we tend to let those little language nuances fly right over our heads as if little Beaver was standing right there annoying the bejesus out of us instead of paying attention to every little detail of what he had to say, as if any of it really mattered.
If I get the time and can find those old text in my files I'll try to post them for you. Not promising anything anytime soon.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 15, 2012 18:33:17 GMT -5
The love of history is exactly what makes you such a "special" person. The one solid fact in life that has fascinated me more than any other "fact" is this:one can not understand and master the dynamics of the present if one does not comprehend the dynamics of the past.
Your gargantuan efforts to do so is to be admired.
|
|
|
|
Post by joewiggs on Jun 22, 2012 20:04:05 GMT -5
Why do so many become so thoroughly immersed in the causal effects of a battle with such an insignificant registry of historical significance? Why are we all here, on this forum, exchanging our individualistic, heartfelt thoughts and opinions of whose responsibility for the tragic final curtain of these event should be addressed?
Maybe the death of General Custer and his men, at some point in time, ceased to be a reality of Man's Inhumanity to Man but. a myth or example of the 'hero" and his loyal followers meeting death to protect they who were not strong enough to protect themselves?
|
|
