Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Ben Kenobi]

I assume you're referencing the Bible

I have a history degree. All history is propaganda (even if only some of it is labelled such).

[kentonio]

And Ken, while I agree with almost everything you posted in this thread and disagree with almost everything that Ben has posted (no surprise)
I am not completely in agreement that committed living together is the same as marriage. I been both. A few committed and one marriage.
While ending a committed arrangement can be messy, I divorce is messier because of the legal aspects.
All relationships have ups and downs, and I think the messier aspect of divorce made me stick it out through one really tough time. BUT I can't say that for sure.
It probably shouldn't make a difference. The committed arrangement that I terminated would have been terminated regardless of whether we were married. And my last committed relationship turned into marriage. (over 25 years and counting)

So while I think they're very close, I think there's a slight difference.

Ah fair enough, good to hear from someone whose done both.

I'm still hoping that one day I'll get around to tying the knot with some poor unfortunate woman, but I think trying a committed relationship first seems like the only sensible approach to at least get a sense of whether its likely to last.

[rah]

Yes, As I kind of mentioned, we lived together for a few years before getting married. I think it helped. (some studies seemed to say differently)
Good luck.

[rah]

I have a history degree. All history is propaganda (even if only some of it is labelled such).

It's not that History is all propaganda, it's just that it can be used that way. As a History major I would expect you to be able to tell the difference, but I guess that's a bad assumption.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's not that History is all propaganda, it's just that it can be used that way.

There's no difference between the parts that are labelled as such and the parts that are not. It's just a label to help people identify beliefs that are considered 'evil'.

Mein Kampf = Propaganda
Das Kapital = Not propaganda.

As a History major I would expect you to be able to tell the difference, but I guess that's a bad assumption.

The label is abused and applied to beliefs, no distinction made between myth and factual evidence. When you call something propaganda you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil, and not an assessment of the actual source. Hence, "everything is propaganda to someone" is an accurate statement.

To actually assess the reliability of the source, labelling something as propaganda is unhelpful.

[Ben Kenobi]

I bet Rah believes that a historical document can be 'impartial'. All of them exhibit bias. The only question is where the bias is exhibited and the extent.

[rah]

When you call something propaganda you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil, and not an assessment of the actual source.

All history is propaganda

So you consider all history to be evil? I guess that includes the BIBLE since you consider that a reliable historical document.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you consider all history to be evil? I guess that includes the BIBLE since you consider that a reliable historical document.

Why is propaganda considered evil?

Historical sources are more or less accurate. Less accurate sources are less reliable. Less reliability means that what actually happened is less likely to match with what was written.

All historical sources are flawed. Some more than others. Yes, that includes the bible - I don't believe that the bible as a historical source is a perfect source for everything that went on. Do I believe it's accurate? Yes. Do I believe it's reliable? Absolutely. But the bible itself states that there are many more things that occurred which were not recorded. As a historical source it exhibits signs of editing.

I'm not an inerrantist. Nor do I believe that that the bible was put together as a complete historical source for the time. WRT doctrine, to God, to YHWH, to the early growth of the Church - the bible is an accurate source for what it includes. But, it is not complete. There are many things left out for sake of time.

No source could be complete.

[rah]

Why is propaganda considered evil?

I didn't say it was. You did.
Read back my post 218 more carefully. you said When you call something propaganda you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil
And you said

All history is propaganda

That would lead most logical people to think that you believe all history is evil.

[Ben Kenobi]

That would lead most logical people to think that you believe all history is evil.

Sources themselves aren't evil. People are. It meshes well with total depravity and original sin.

[rah]

You're down to arguing with yourself. You say one thing then say something else.

Are you denying that you posted

All history is propaganda

and

When you call something propaganda you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil,

What part don't you get? You're the one that said it.
This is a waste of time and I should know better.

[Ben Kenobi]

What part don't you get? You're the one that said it.
This is a waste of time and I should know better.

This is basic historiography, Rah. First class in any college history course, generally assumed folks are familiar with it from high school.

[rah]

You still haven't answered my question. Did you not post those two items?

You keep trying to change the subject and I'm not buying.

You said

All history is propaganda

And

When you call something propaganda you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil

The logical connection is that since you called all history propaganda that you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil.
What part of my statement do you not understand?

Feel free to retract either statement. You're just trying to change the topic.

[Ben Kenobi]

The logical connection is that since you called all history propaganda that you are giving us a reliable assessment of what you consider to be evil.
What part of my statement do you not understand?

Most folks who use the term use it to refer to things they believe are evil. I'm a bit more cynical than this. I believe that every historical document has bias and exhibits bias, and that every document would be considered propaganda by some. I also believe that a historical source cannot be evil. It can be false - inaccurate and misleading. But not evil. Evil requires moral culpability. People are evil, sources are not.

It all fits together rah.

[Hauldren Collider]

Not acceptable homophobic language IMO.

I've seen counterglow.