It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anishnaabe oral traditions refer to the coming of the last ice age. Not too much to argue there.
originally posted by: Monger
There are very interesting studies that suggest oral histories can be passed down in the form of myth and legend for thousands of years. (Heres one such story, off topic but a good read. It explores the possibility of First Nations/Native American knowledge of extinct megafauna from the oral tradition.)
originally posted by: Monger
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: verschickter
I really don't understand the protestant die-hard's unease with Catholicism. It seems like some people have big ideas in their heads about what Catholicism is all about without knowing much of anything about it beyond what their pastor or Sunday school teacher has said.
You have Baptists who handle snakes and drink poison, Pentecostals who roll around on the floor babbling in tongues like fools. I somehow doubt the Angelic language is spoken flailing on the floor going 'habalabulalululballgaga' with a distinct Southern accent.
What's so scary about Catholicism? Have you attested Catholic service? Boring? Yes. Scary? Not by a long shot.
originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
So what your 'sound scholarship' tells you is that the epic of Gilgamesh --- taken from some of the earliest writings ever found --- actually came from Noah who, by extension, would have had to have lived prior to the Sumerians. So Noah was part of some culture/civilization that existed prior to the Sumerians (in order for Noah's account to have been handed 'down' to the Sumerians) but for whom there is absolutely no evidence or any kind? Is that how it works? That makes more sense from a 'sound scholarship' standpoint than the possibility that Christianity re-worked pre-existing folklore into their story?
originally posted by: BStoltman
I recently found this video on Youtube, and he goes over all these supposedly facts, that Easter and its symbols are Pagan? Is he correct or full or crap?
Seems kinda sketchy.
Here is the link video, let me know your thoughts?
Thanks for your ideas!
originally posted by: Monger
What's so scary about Catholicism?
In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. ...The Catholic Church became increasingly important in Rwanda, as the [mostly Catholic] Belgian government relied on the clergy's local knowledge; many Rwandans became Catholics as a means of social advancement [cause Catholics are very good at looking after their own interests in power and wealth]. ... this is related to the holocaust since that was a genocide as well.[35]
...
After World War II, a Hutu [mostly Catholic motivated and supported] emancipation movement began to grow in Rwanda,[36] fuelled by increasing resentment of the inter-war social reforms, and also an increasing sympathy for the Hutu within the Catholic Church.[37] Catholic missionaries increasingly viewed themselves as responsible for empowering the underprivileged Hutu [only the Catholics, but "underprivileged Hutu" sounds a lot more like you're doing something rigtheous, self-righteous] rather than the Tutsi elite, leading rapidly to the formation of a sizeable Hutu [Catholic] clergy and educated elite...
In 1957, a group of Hutu [Catholic] scholars wrote the "Bahutu Manifesto". This was the first document to label the Tutsi and Hutu as separate races, and called for the transfer of power from Tutsi to Hutu based on what it termed "statistical law".[38]
On 1 November 1959, a Hutu [probably Catholic] sub-chief, Dominique Mbonyumutwa, was attacked in Kigali by supporters of the pro-Tutsi party. Mbonyumutwa survived, but rumours began spreading that he had been killed.[39] Hutu [mostly Catholic] activists responded by killing Tutsi, both the elite and ordinary civilians, marking the beginning of the Rwandan Revolution.[40] The Tutsi responded with attacks of their own, but by this stage the Hutu had full backing from the [mostly Catholic] Belgian administration who wanted to overturn the Tutsi domination.[41][42] In early 1960, the Belgians replaced most Tutsi chiefs with Hutu [Catholic] and organised mid-year commune elections which returned an overwhelming Hutu [Catholic] majority.[41] The king was deposed, a Hutu[Catholic] dominated republic created, and the country became independent in 1962.
...
As the revolution progressed, Tutsi began leaving the country to escape the Hutu purges [Catholic motivated or supported; because of the teachings taught in the Churches depending on what kind of teacher is present in that Church, often someone looking after his own interests in power and wealth] ,... further reprisal killings of Tutsi [mostly non-Catholic] and further Tutsi exiles.[46] By 1964, more than 300,000 Tutsi had fled, and were forced to remain in exile for the next three decades.[47] Pro-Hutu [mostly Catholic] discrimination continued in Rwanda itself,...
Preparation for genocide
Historians do not agree on the precise date on which the [mostly Catholic] idea of a "final solution" to kill every Tutsi [mostly non-Catholic] in Rwanda was first mooted.
...
On March 20, 2017, Pope Francis acknowledged that while some Catholic nuns and priests in the country were killed during the genocide, others were complicit with it and took part in preparing and executing the genocide.[99]