.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Zenister 0
Steel 0
QuoteQuote
The Jews are the ones who refused to believe that Jesus was Christ. That was the only original difference.
if you really believe that there isnt much point in discussing it with you because there are FAR more differences than that....do a bit more research and come back....
your 'genealogy' has some serious flaws...
no you just need to reread the sentence and understand what it means. I said that was the only ORIGINAL difference. Just like the only ORIGINAL difference between the Episcopilians and the Roman Catholics was that the Episcopilians allowed divorce. Sure in present day many other traditions have developed. Hell in present day some Episcopilians have gone so far as to allow gay Bishops. But they still only had one ORIGINAL difference. If you know of another difference that was always there from the beginning, between Jews and Christian then please enlighten us. For as it stands to me, you just sound like a typical liberal who wants to bash Christians anyway you can. In this case you are simply taking a term like Judeo-Christian and somehow trying to flip around to make it sound like some evil Christian plot.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Zenister 0
as i've already said previously, take a quick look at the Jewish criteria for salvation and afterlife (such as they believe it, which is FAR different from what the Christians think happens when you die) and compare them to the Christian. Christian bibles translate the OT with the intent to make them align with the NT. The similarities are often manufactured or the result of misunderstanding the words in the context they are originally used in place of more modern usages and interpretations that give the appearance of continuity. For starters why don’t you look up the Hebrew word for ‘sky’ and tell me why Christian bibles use ‘heaven’ instead? Do the same with ‘hell’ oh wait, first you might have to find the Hebrew word for hell and research its contextual meaning too….continue on with ‘lord’ ‘Lord’ ‘divinity’ ‘spirit’ etc….its not hard to rewrite another religions beliefs when you translate them thru the filter of your own, but that doesn’t mean that’s what the actually believe, no matter how much you wish to pretend continuity.
there are FUNDAMENTAL differences in belief and dogma the two, you can assert "the only difference is" but you'll have a very tough time backing that up with any sources (please try it should be fun to watch), but i'm not going to educate you if you cant bother to do your basic research first...perhaps you should spend some time in a Synagogue before you repeat the same tired line asserting that Christianity was not a fundamental break with Judaism.
it isnt an 'evil plot' at all, its simply a misnomer, created and perpetuated by those who havent bothered to check the history and dogma of the two religions very closely..
there are FUNDAMENTAL differences in belief and dogma the two, you can assert "the only difference is" but you'll have a very tough time backing that up with any sources (please try it should be fun to watch), but i'm not going to educate you if you cant bother to do your basic research first...perhaps you should spend some time in a Synagogue before you repeat the same tired line asserting that Christianity was not a fundamental break with Judaism.
it isnt an 'evil plot' at all, its simply a misnomer, created and perpetuated by those who havent bothered to check the history and dogma of the two religions very closely..
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
juanesky 0
Yep, and compare that to the Muslim virgins without shaving their legs or armpits once you blow yourself up....
damn, definitely not my choice of cake...
damn, definitely not my choice of cake...
"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon
Actually, Bush now repudiated the claim, stating that Boykin's statements were not a statement of US Policy. In the future, I hope he and other military men and women keep their uniforms off when making such statements. It'll help to avoid this unpleasantness.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=6&u=/nm/20031022/us_nm/bush_general_dc_3
CANBERRA, Australia (Reuters) - President Bush distanced himself Wednesday from a senior military intelligence official who sparked an international firestorm by saying that Muslims worship an idol and not a "real God."
Moderate Muslim clerics took issue with Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian who serves as deputy undersecretary of defense, during talks on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
"I said, 'He didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it just doesn't reflect what the government thinks.' And I think they were pleased to hear that," Bush told reporters afterward.
The comments were Bush's first in public on the controversy surrounding Boykin, who portrayed the U.S. war on terrorism as a clash with "Satan," saying Islamic radicals sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation."
Bush, in contrast, has publicly -- and privately -- rebuked Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad over his remarks about Jews controlling the West by proxy.
In an interview with reporters aboard Air Force One, Bush said he "didn't yell" at Mahathir at an Asia-Pacific summit. "I said they (his comments about Jews) were divisive and unnecessary."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday that the Pentagon (news - web sites) would launch an internal probe into speeches given at churches and prayer breakfasts by Boykin.
Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, called for Boykin to be reassigned, at least temporarily.
Boykin's comments surfaced last week when NBC News broadcast videotapes of him giving speeches while wearing his Army uniform at various Christian functions.
In one speech, Boykin referred to a Muslim fighter in Somalia who said U.S. forces would never catch him because Allah would protect him. "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Boykin said.
Several Democrats and some religious and civil rights groups have condemned his remarks.
Boykin said in a statement Friday he was "neither a zealot nor an extremist," was "not anti-Islam or any other religion," and offered a "sincere apology" to those offended by his remarks.
Reflecting growing mistrust of the United States among ordinary Indonesians, the clerics meeting in Bali also criticized Washington for supporting Israel over the Palestinians and for the occupation of Iraq.
"There was kind of a sense that Americans believe that Muslims are terrorists," Bush said. "One of the reasons I wanted to have this meeting was because I wanted to make it very clear that I didn't feel that way and Americans don't feel that way."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1896&ncid=1896&e=6&u=/nm/20031022/us_nm/bush_general_dc_3
CANBERRA, Australia (Reuters) - President Bush distanced himself Wednesday from a senior military intelligence official who sparked an international firestorm by saying that Muslims worship an idol and not a "real God."
Moderate Muslim clerics took issue with Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, an evangelical Christian who serves as deputy undersecretary of defense, during talks on the Indonesian resort island of Bali.
"I said, 'He didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it just doesn't reflect what the government thinks.' And I think they were pleased to hear that," Bush told reporters afterward.
The comments were Bush's first in public on the controversy surrounding Boykin, who portrayed the U.S. war on terrorism as a clash with "Satan," saying Islamic radicals sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation."
Bush, in contrast, has publicly -- and privately -- rebuked Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad over his remarks about Jews controlling the West by proxy.
In an interview with reporters aboard Air Force One, Bush said he "didn't yell" at Mahathir at an Asia-Pacific summit. "I said they (his comments about Jews) were divisive and unnecessary."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced Tuesday that the Pentagon (news - web sites) would launch an internal probe into speeches given at churches and prayer breakfasts by Boykin.
Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) Chairman Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, called for Boykin to be reassigned, at least temporarily.
Boykin's comments surfaced last week when NBC News broadcast videotapes of him giving speeches while wearing his Army uniform at various Christian functions.
In one speech, Boykin referred to a Muslim fighter in Somalia who said U.S. forces would never catch him because Allah would protect him. "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Boykin said.
Several Democrats and some religious and civil rights groups have condemned his remarks.
Boykin said in a statement Friday he was "neither a zealot nor an extremist," was "not anti-Islam or any other religion," and offered a "sincere apology" to those offended by his remarks.
Reflecting growing mistrust of the United States among ordinary Indonesians, the clerics meeting in Bali also criticized Washington for supporting Israel over the Palestinians and for the occupation of Iraq.
"There was kind of a sense that Americans believe that Muslims are terrorists," Bush said. "One of the reasons I wanted to have this meeting was because I wanted to make it very clear that I didn't feel that way and Americans don't feel that way."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999 2,447
And this is meaningful -- how?
Wendy W.
Wendy W.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Gawain 0
QuoteQuoteOur war in Iraq has not diminished our activity in Afghanistan
Actually, Canadian troops among others have relieved US troops in Afghanistan so they could be redirected to Iraq. I am sure you don't really get to hear that in the US media, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.
The total US force strength is still higher than Canada's. Not that this matters. In fact, it was a Canadian Marine Sniper that set a new distance record sniper shot...some insane distance. Good work for him.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Amazon 7
QuoteIslam came 600 years later, I am not sure who they branched off of. But because of their blatant general hatred of Jews, I would seriously doubt that they branched off them. If you took away all the violence that this faith advocates (even in this day and age) then you might be able to make a case for the similarities between Islam and Judeo-Christian religions. Christians believe Moses was a prophet just like the Jews. Christians also believe that Jesus was Christ. Jews believe he was a prophet up to this point the Muslims and the Jews agree
Excerpt form article in Slate http://slate.msn.com/?id=2057949
Traditionally, Islam did not demonize Jews. In Muslim lore, Jews registered as only minor figures, drawing neither special hatred nor fondness. It was Christianity, in fact, whose teachings first propounded anti-Semitism. At first it was a fairly straightforward business: Jews didn’t view Christ as the messiah, and so they were denounced or oppressed. When times got bad, they were exiled or persecuted.
Over time, Christian anti-Semitism acquired a racial dimension along with its religious thrust. This had significant consequences. After all, when Jew-hating was rooted in religion, a Jew could convert to Christianity and become, as it were, fully kosher. But when states began forcing Jews to convert—or face expulsion or execution—the authenticity of the Jews’ conversions became suspect. After Christians conquered Spain from the Muslims in 1492, they forced Jews and Muslims to convert, flee, or die. Many Jews converted yet practiced their old faith secretly, leading church officials to make new rules discriminating against all so-called conversos.
And now for something COMPLETELY different as far as a view..
http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/islamic_jesus.html
Islam the primordial faith
Islam regards itself, not as a subsequent faith to Judaism and Christianity, but as the primordial religion, the faith from which Judaism and Christianity are subsequent developments. In the Qur’an we read that Abraham ‘was not a Jew nor a Christian, but he was a monotheist, a Muslim’ (Âl 'Imran 3:66). So it is Muslims, and not Christians or Jews, who are the true representatives of the faith of Abraham to the world today. (Al-Baqarah 2:135)
The Biblical prophets were all Muslims
Many prophets of the past received the one religion of Islam. (Ash-Shura 42:13) Who were these previous prophets? According to Al-An’am 6:85-87 they include Ibrahim (Abraham), ‘Ishaq (Issac), Yaqub (Jacob), Nuh (Noah), Dawud (David), Sulaiman (Solomon), Ayyub (Job), Yusuf (Joseph), Musa (Moses), Harun (Aaron), Zakariyya (Zachariah), Yahya (John the Baptist), ‘Isa (Jesus), Ilyas, Ishmael, Al-Yash’a (Elisha), Yunus (Jonah) and Lut (Lot).
The Muslim ‘Isa (Jesus)
There are two main sources for ‘Isa, the Muslim Jesus. The Qur’an gives a history of his life, whilst the Hadith collections — recollections of Muhammad’s words and deeds — establish his place in the Muslim understanding of the future.
This should stir the pot nicely
Jeanne
Steel 0
I am not a relgious buff and for that reason I can't quote versus and go line by line. What I know is what I have learned from people who care that I have associated with. Those people include devout Muslims, non-Muslim Arabs, Israeli Jews, Ashchronazic Jews, Catholics, etc. I have found the general concensus to be that what your saying (that the first people ever to have any kind of hatred toward Jews were Christian and that Muslims were in different to them) is untrue, specially from any type of Jews or Muslims. Oh there are plenty of bleeding heart liberal who will line up with the to make all kinds of wacky statements to try to blame white male Christians for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world. So you don't surprise me with your statement. What I could say and I will is that your comparison with Spain is laughable. History could not be clearer on the fact that Spain was Christian before it was conquered my the Moors (Muslims). Although it took almost 800 years they never ceased to fight off the ivaders and they/we did take it back. They only part of that, that you got right was that it was right about 1492 that we finally got it back. Actually if you were to look into the history of the land that is now referred to as Spain, you would find it used to be called Visigoth and at that time it was part of the Germanic Empire based out of what is now Germany. See Spain was Christian berfore Muslims existed. So this fantasy of yours that Spain was some Muslim country that the Christians conquered it can be stopped right in its tracks.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
SkyDekker 1,465
QuoteThe total US force strength is still higher than Canada's.
Without any shadow of a doubt, but that wasn't the point. You claimed that the war in Iraq had not deminished US activity in Afghanistan. I am pointing out that I don't think that is correct and said why.
TheAnvil 0
This thread is still around and kicking. Amazing.
Ann Coulter's take on this - quite funny.
http://www.anncoulter.org
Ann Coulter's take on this - quite funny.
http://www.anncoulter.org
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!
Amazon 7
QuoteI am not a religious buff and for that reason I can't quote versus and go line by line.
Well since you did not take the TIME to actually READ any of the links.
Hmm No I would not imagine you to be a religious buff since you HATE the Muslims...since you purport to be a history buff instead.. perhaps then a study of history will do in its place
This is a VERY GOOD article.. PLEASE READ it..
It is just DRIPPING with racial and religious intolerance.
http://www.dean.sbc.edu/ingber.html
Excerpt
Moreover, the notion of "Spain" itself poses some fundamental questions. When did Spain begin to exist as a nation? Were the cultures that inhabited the Iberian Peninsula before the Roman Empire the first true Spaniards? Did the Romans bring to Spain - Hispania - the first notion of a Spanish identity? Did the Visigoths, who adopted the Latin language and Christian religion of the local inhabitants, somehow set Spain apart from other provinces of the former Roman Empire? Were the Moors - Islamic peoples who controlled much of the peninsula for centuries - Spaniards or alien invaders? Did the Catholic Monarchs, who conquered the last Moorish kingdom on the peninsula and expelled the Jews in 1492, finally establish Spain as a unified nation
Phoenicians and Romans
Muslims ruled in Spain for nearly 800 – a period longer even than the Roman Empire in Spain. But the Arabs were hardly the first people from the east to set foot in Spain. For in 1104 BC Phoenician merchants from Lebanon established a colony at Gades, modern Cadiz, thus founding Europe’s first city. The Phoenician cult of two-pillared Hercules they brought with them gave the name ‘Pillars of Hercules’ to the Straits of Gibraltar throughout antiquity. Most of southern Spain was soon colonized by the Phoenicians, and the western Mediterranean became a Phoenician lake until they in turn were overthrown by the Romans in the 2nd century BC
Vandals expanded into Iberia
http://www.boglewood.com/sicily/vandals.html
In 406 the Vandal tribe began moving westward from its temporary refuge in Pannonia, the region north and east of the Danube in present-day Hungary. In Gaul they were soundly defeated by the Franks, so their leader Gunderic continued their march over the Pyrenees into present-day Spain. Their initial experience there was little better, as they lost half their forces in wars of attrition with other local tribes. Finally, however, their fortunes rebounded under Gunderic's successor, Gaiseric, and they managed to achieve a shaky hegemony over the Andalusia area of the Iberian Peninsula. At this point Gaiseric heard opportunity knocking in a most unusual and problematic manner.
In 428 Bonifacius, viceroy of the Roman Empire's six provinces of North Africa, found himself in a serious and threatening dispute with his master, Emperor Valentinian III, whose court was by then headquartered not at Rome but at Ravenna on the Adriatic coast of the Italian peninsula. Bonifacius rashly invited the Vandals to come to his aid; in fact, he provided the ships for transporting the entire 80,000 members of the Vandal nation to North Africa.
Finally the chemistry was right for the Vandals. Within two years the Vandals under Gaiseric captured all of Rome's African possessions except the cities of Carthage, Hippo and Cirta. By 439 those cities had fallen as well, pushing the Roman Empire entirely out of North Africa. In the following year the Vandals drove the Romans from nearby Sicily as well.
Gaiseric quickly consolidated his military gains. The Vandals created a fleet that by 470 made them the greatest maritime power of the Mediterranean. Even sooner, in 455, the Vandals were able to make an audacious raid on the city of Rome itself, occupying it for a period of two weeks and plundering it at their leisure.
Alas, although the Vandals' candle burned brightly, its light was brief.
In 531 Gaiseric's unpopular grandson, Hilderic, was overthrown as leader of the Vandals by his cousin Gelimer and imprisoned. However, Gelimer was to find that he should have given greater weight to the fact that Hilderic was a son of Eudoxia, who was herself the widow of Roman Emperor Valentinian III. For the Roman Empire, now consolidated at Constantinople and reinvigorated under Emperor Justinian I and his highly effective military commander, Belisarius, the dishonorable treatment of the son of a former Empress was sufficient excuse to launch an invasion into North Africa in 533. Belisarius' attacking forces arrived while much of the Vandal army was away in Sardinia on another expansionist adventure, and they swept though the depleted defenses of Carthage. A succession of further battles ensued, resulting in the complete defeat and resettlement of the Vandals, ending both the Vandal empire and the existence of the Vandals as a people.
http://www.orbilat.com/Encyclopaedia/V/Visigoths.html
Visigoths displaced the Vandals
Under Ataulf the Visigoths left (412) Italy and went into Southern Gaul and Northern Spain. They increased their territories in Spain (which was evacuated by the Vandals), acquired Aquitaine, and extended their influence to the Loire valley, making Toulouse their capital. The height of Visigothic power was reached under Euric (466–84), who completed the conquest of Spain. In 507, Alaric II was defeated at Vouillé by the Franks under Clovis, to whom he lost nearly all his possessions North of the Pyrenees. Toledo became the new Visigothic capital, and the history of the Visigoths became essentially that of Spain.
Weakened by warfare with the Franks and the Basques and by Byzantine penetration in Southern Spain, the kingdom recovered its vigor in the late 6th cent. under Leovigild and under Recared, whose conversion to Catholicism facilitated the fusion of the Visigothic and the Hispano-Roman populations of Spain. King Recceswinth imposed (c.654) a Visigothic common law on both his Gothic and his Roman subjects, who previously had lived under different codes (see Germanic laws). The church councils of Toledo became the main force in the government, and the royal power was weakened accordingly.
King Wamba, who succeeded Recceswinth, was deposed after a civil war, and thereafter the kingdom was torn by civil strife. When the last king, Roderick, seized the throne, his rivals appealed to the Muslim leader Tarik ibn Ziyad, whose victory (711) in a battle near Medina Sidonia ended the Visigothic kingdom and inaugurated the Moorish period in the history of Spain.
Not too much stability there of the Christians before the Muslims was there.
QuoteOh there are plenty of bleeding heart liberal who will line up with the to make all kinds of wacky statements to try to blame white male Christians for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world. So you don't surprise me with your statement. What I could say and I will is that your comparison with Spain is laughable
No just Racially PURE( you got to be shitting me) Spaniards who sought to PURGE Spain of any influences other than Catholicism.. henceforth called the SPANISH INQUISITION.
Then there is your comments on gypsies several times in several threads....they've been in Spain now for a good 1400 years, they've contributed greatly to Iberian culture (flamenco is a good example, and what exactly is the Goth's lasting legacy in Spain apart from a few Nordic fetishists like you?) and, as you pointed out, they've intermixed with the Iberian populace to the point where many Spaniards have gypsy blood and vice versa. Also, I don't think the gypsies who entered Spain were pure or even predominantly North Indian, they had to trek through large parts of Europe to get to Spain and undoubtedly mixed with the people they encountered along the way (Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, etc..) Needless to say, it's highly hypocritical of you to deride gypsies as 'fake' Spaniards while at the same time considering yourself (a self proclaimed Visigoth) an Iberian alpha male. If gypsies are non-Spaniards because they aren't completely native to the Iberian peninsula, you're going to have to exclude yourself from being Spanish too. Pre-modern Spain was a nation of immense cultural richness prior to the xenophobic upheavals which led to the persecution and expulsion of its Jewish and Muslim inhabitants.
It was a place where Christian and Muslim kingdoms existed side by side, with people of different religious backgrounds and outlooks living in each region, and where Jews were integrated into the mix.
QuoteSee Spain was Christian before Muslims existed. So this fantasy of yours that Spain was some Muslim country that the Christians conquered it can be stopped right in its tracks.
Please put that crack pipe down. The hallucinations are running way too fast for your brain. I never claimed that Spain was a Muslim country originally... It was a Phoenician outpost then Roman then the tribes of Vandals and Visigoths who were Christians with some other beliefs thrown in called Arianism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm then the Muslims conquered them and brought the LONGEST period of peace.. and tolerance.. that the Iberian Peninsula has ever had.
Its your FANTASY that since the fall of the Moors that it is a better place.. the codified intolerance is like all religious wars... bloody and ultimately stupid displays of vulgarity in its highest form.... There is one little passage on that set of rocks that GOD crafted for Moses.... THOU SHALT NOT KILL ( or murder in some translations)... That pretty much sums up the utmost in hypocrisy. It’s ok to kill to force people to believe as you do...your ancestors were good at it. The people they persecuted were Muslim or Jewish...they believed differently than you did...hence you seem to feel that was good reason to kill them. And you are still espousing this stuff in the here and now... Again...how many millions need to die this time to satisfy your racial and religious blood lust.
For centuries it was ok for christians thoughout Europe to hate and kill jews because they killed Jesus. The Muslims have far different reasons mostly broght on due to European predjuidice and policies, but the foundations all three religeons come from the same place. All worship the same GOD.. even if he is called different things to each group... he is the monotheistic all being creator. It goes back to Abraham/Ibrahim in good old Iraq/UR.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/abraham.htm
The differences are DOGMA..... and who is a prophet in each of them... They have far more in common than they do in difference
Jeanne
Steel 0
A lot of the stuff you posted here is accurate but most of the accurate points do not in anyway contradict what I said. For the part the accurate points here are going far into history all the way to BC (Before Christ, hence before Christians anywhere else in the entire world existed). The funny thing is that for somebody who doesn't have any serious history knowledge (the overwelming majority of Americans included) this posting of yours would suggest to them that Spain was some unstable region. The truth is that compared to the rest of the world at those times it was anything but unstable. Spain became known as Spain before the Moors got there. At that point they did what ever other country in Europe did at their time they picked a language to make it the official language Castillian was their choice. The following quote proves that this source of yours is not one to be trusted.
--------------------------------
Under Ataulf the Visigoths left (412) Italy and went into Southern Gaul and Northern Spain.
----------------------------------------
ITALY, how the hell could Italy have been referenced in the year 412? Did you know that the U.S. has been a country longer than Italy? The Italians as we know them now have been fighting each other for thousands of years unable to establish unity enough to become a country. I can't remember exactly what it is right now but Italy has been one country for about 159, 160 years. You know what is even funnier? The movement in Northern Italy to separate everybody from North of Rome and become their own country by the name of Padania. You think this is some Sci-fi movie? It isn't. I was there and have even some propagands material that I picked up at one of their offices for the cause. (Pro Padiana tt-shirts, button, patches and flyers) That region is as unstable as it ever was and runs to risk of not even making their 200th anniversary as a country. Germany, the great and the wonderful, is only about 180 years old. That fact is that there are only a few countries in Europe who have a longer history than Spain. There is France, England and Greece. Maybe there may be a few more but I can't think of any. However it is quite clear that the reason these other countries, where the cities are far older than the country itself, took so long become one country is because of their inner instablity.
--------------------------------
Under Ataulf the Visigoths left (412) Italy and went into Southern Gaul and Northern Spain.
----------------------------------------
ITALY, how the hell could Italy have been referenced in the year 412? Did you know that the U.S. has been a country longer than Italy? The Italians as we know them now have been fighting each other for thousands of years unable to establish unity enough to become a country. I can't remember exactly what it is right now but Italy has been one country for about 159, 160 years. You know what is even funnier? The movement in Northern Italy to separate everybody from North of Rome and become their own country by the name of Padania. You think this is some Sci-fi movie? It isn't. I was there and have even some propagands material that I picked up at one of their offices for the cause. (Pro Padiana tt-shirts, button, patches and flyers) That region is as unstable as it ever was and runs to risk of not even making their 200th anniversary as a country. Germany, the great and the wonderful, is only about 180 years old. That fact is that there are only a few countries in Europe who have a longer history than Spain. There is France, England and Greece. Maybe there may be a few more but I can't think of any. However it is quite clear that the reason these other countries, where the cities are far older than the country itself, took so long become one country is because of their inner instablity.
If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
kallend 2,027
QuoteI think the only reason the Islamic faith is considered separate is because of their violent tendencies all the way through the centuries upto and including present day.
Ummm - the Crusades, the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions were not violent? "Bloody Mary", a devoted Roman Catholic, wasn't violent? Hitler was (nominally) a Roman Catholic .
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Amazon 7
QuoteThe following quote proves that this source of yours is not one to be trusted.
Ah what the Hell Encarta or Britanica can't hold a candle to your historical prowess.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552589/Ancient_Rome.html
Excerpt
Nearly 3,000 years ago shepherds first built huts on the hills beside the Tiber River in central Italy. These encampments gradually grew and merged to form the city of Rome. Rome’s history is unique in comparison to other large urban centers like London, England, or Paris, France, because it encompasses more than the story of a single city. In ancient times Rome extended its political control over all of Italy and eventually created an empire that stretched from England to North Africa and from the Atlantic Ocean to Arabia
Its a common usage for the Italian Penninsula..
Oh and by the way.. on the Iberian Peninsula... what would you call ther Portugese, Galacian, Catalan languages?
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761557681_1/Spanish_Language.html#S9
The Spanish language originated in the southwest region of Europe known as the Iberian Peninsula. Sometime before the end of the 6th century bc, the region’s first inhabitants, the Iberians, began to mingle with the Celts, a nomadic people from central Europe. The two groups formed a people called the Celtiberians, speaking a form of Celtic. The Carthaginians, who spoke the Punic dialect of the Phoenician language, invaded the peninsula around 237 bc, bringing new words to the peninsula. The cities of Carthage and Rome were bitter enemies, and the strong Carthaginian presence on the Iberian Peninsula helped spark the Second Punic War (218-201 bc) between the two powers. In 206 bc the Romans captured the Carthaginian capital of Gadir (present-day Cádiz). Having driven out the Carthaginians, the Romans began to subdue native groups of the region, and by 19 bc they had completed their conquest of the entire peninsula.
Under Roman rule the region became known as Hispania, and its inhabitants learned Latin from Roman traders, settlers, administrators, and soldiers. When the classical Latin of the educated Roman classes mixed with the pre-Roman languages of the Iberians, Celts, and Carthaginians, a language called Vulgar Latin appeared. It followed the basic models of Latin but borrowed and added words from the other languages.
The Visigoths, Germanic tribes of eastern Europe, invaded Hispania in the ad 400s, but Latin remained the official language of government and culture until about ad 719, when Arabic-speaking Islamic groups from Northern Africa called Moors completed their conquest of the region. Arabic and a related dialect called Mozarabic came to be widely spoken in Islamic Spain except in a few remote Christian kingdoms in the north such as Asturias, where Vulgar Latin survived.
The Christian kingdoms gradually reconquered Spain over the centuries, and the retaking of the country proved to be linguistic as well as political, military, and religious. As the Christians moved south, their Vulgar Latin dialects became dominant. In particular, Castilian, a dialect that originated on the northern central plains, was carried into southern and eastern regions.
Castilian borrowed many words from Mozarabic, and modern Spanish has an estimated 4,000 words with Arabic roots. These words include military and naval terms, such as arsenal (arsenal) and almirante (admiral); words having to do with sociopolitical administration, such as alcalde (mayor) and alguacil (constable); and commercial words, such as almacén (warehouse) and almoneda (auction). Other borrowed vocabulary includes terminology for professions or skills, such as alfarero (potter); words for domestic furnishings, such as alfombra (carpet); and vocabulary for science and drugs, such as álgebra (algebra) and alcohol (alcohol).
Oops theres those darhned old Moors once again
QuoteSpain became known as Spain before the Moors got there. At that point they did what ever other country in Europe did at their time they picked a language to make it the official language Castillian was their choice
Back to the BOOKS.. right now...
Seems there is a tad more diversity there than just Castilian wouldn't you say?
Jeanne
if you really believe that there isnt much point in discussing it with you because there are FAR more differences than that....do a bit more research and come back....
your 'genealogy' has some serious flaws...
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites