Pope sends direct message to Ben

[Imran Siddiqui]

Though, declaring a King to be "Defender of the Faith" and then turning around and not granting him an annulment (which was kind of common in those days among the princely-caste) was a bit silly (Yes, I realize the Pope was scared to death of the Spanish at the time).

[The Mad Monk]

To be fair, out of all the possible reasons to break away from the RC, "they won't grant our king a divorce" has to right at the bottom.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's ok that Ben doesn't consider the "Church of England" to be truly Christian, in his most backwards Catholic viewpoint (even the Papacy has asserted Protestants are Christian). We can simply dust off the good ole' "Pope as Anti-Christ" thing.

[rah]

I wasn't referring to most folks, I was quoting you. Just you.

[Hauldren Collider]

Not acceptable homophobic language IMO.

I've seen counterglow.

[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 I believe that every historical document has bias and exhibits bias, and that every document would be considered propaganda by some.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.

[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]

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'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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.