Genghis misunderstood

Washington Times ^ | 10-3-06 | Matthew Barakat

[JZelle]

He's one of the most famous names of the last millennium, and he's the father of his country, which turns 800 years old this year. That's why the D.C. region's Mongolian community would like to see a statue erected of Genghis Khan, the George Washington of Mongolia.

[orionblamblam]

> those are generally people much more relevant to the US than Khan.

That's debatable. I've seen lots of statues of, for example, Poles who came to America to help fight in the Revolution (Casimir Pulasky and whatnot). These people ahve a tendency to be almost *entirely* irrelevant to the bulk of American history... certainly nowhere near as important as Ghengis. Had some minor European army Major not come to the US and gotten shot dead in his first battle, the US would almost certainly still exist, perhaps with no recognizable changes. Had the Khans not existed, the US probably wouldn't either... except as part of the greater World Caliphate.

Nevertheless, these minor Euro figures are relevant to the people who actually paid for the statue - typically the Poles in Chicago, the Italians in New York, whoever.

[muawiyah]

Ah, but you don't know your history very well do you.

Julius Caesar lived long before Jesus.

Outside of the emperors, there's little attestation that anybody at all existed in those days. When it comes to the coins, not every emperor (particularly in later years in the Western Empire) got his face on one, and even some of the emperors on coins may be spurious.

They just didn't keep records in the old days like we do today.

Turns out Jesus' existence is attested to by the four major Gospel writers, as well as by others whose witness is included in those Gospels, or in letters by Peter and Paul that refer to the testimony of others.

During that period of time not another ordinary individual in Palestine has left behind any records at all beyond little carvings on graves.

[SevenofNine]

I love that one scene when Mongolians threw that baseball it was grenade LOL!

[verum ago]

those are generally people much more relevant to the US than Khan.
yes, that's debatable. One could hypothetically argue that some long dead minor European infantry Major who died in the American Revolution is more relevant to the US because he better embodie the American spirit and ideals. Once again, debatable.

but that's a matter of degree (who is more relevant than whom). As a matter of principal, however, if the Mongolians want to pay for and put a statue, I see no problem with it. People don't have to be happy with a Khan statue, but there's no legitimate reason they can't put one up. And personally, I do agree that if some "irrelevant" dead European soldier can have a statue then Khan deserves one even more. In other words, you're right, I agree with you, and you were right all along. There, I said it :)

[usurper]

Genghis was guy that knew how to interact with Muslims.

Yes, I also vote for a statue of Vlad the Impaler.

[SevenofNine]

I hearing that they going set up statue or muserem for Vlad the Implaer the real Dracula

[agere_contra]

Sorry, was AFK. Yes, of course I agree with you.

I hope you understand that I raise these schizoid denials as a reductio absurdum of OBB's apparent assumption that the Person who has formed human history was invented by the Gospel writers. Eleven out of twelve of the Apostles died in agony attesting for the truth of the Gospels. If Jesus never existed then one of the many questions one would have to ask - why would they make this stuff up?

[orionblamblam]

> As a matter of principal, however, if the Mongolians want to pay for and put a statue, I see no problem with it.

Agreed. If some Russian immigrants want a stature of Stalin... hey, pay the artist to cast it up for you, and stick it on your lawn. Putting it in the public square.... ummm, no.

> you were right all along

You are on the road to wisdom, young Padawan.

[verum ago]

You are on the road to wisdom, young Padawan

don't patronize me :) (I might go Dark Side on your @$$!)

[orionblamblam]

> the Person who has formed human history ...

Werner von Braun? Archimedes? Gilgamesh?

> Eleven out of twelve of the Apostles died in agony...

According to whom?

> If Jesus never existed then one of the many questions one would have to ask - why would they make this stuff up?

How did Joseph Smith die? How did Marshall Applewhite die? How about David Koresh?

[muir_redwoods]

He was a murderous thug on a horse, little better than a Blood or a Crip.

[orionblamblam]

[PzLdr]

I'm talking about two kingdoms that Chingghis waged offensive war against, one of which he attacked to flank the Chin on their western [undefended] border prior to his offensive war against the Chinese.

I'm as great an admirer of the Yakka Mongols as you'll find, but facts are facts. Once Temujin united the tribes, he waged several wars of aggression, two at least [Hsia Hsia and the Chin] without cause. Kara Khitai had been taken over by Gukluk, a Naiman opponent, and the Khwarism Shah murdered a Mongol Ambassador, which was a casus belli. But Hsia Hsia was atacked for its location, and the Chin were attacked for their wealth.

[PzLdr]

He practiced religious toleration in his Empire when Europe and Islam did not. He never broke his word to an ally. He introduced the first pony express system [the YAM], that allowed messages to traverse the Mongol Empire from the Pacific the the Danube in something like 90 days. He created the first modern, professional army since Rome's. Oh yeah, he and his sons and grandsons created the largest Empire in history

The Mongols fostered technology, and adapted the technologies of their subject peoples. They were one of the first governments of their time to use, recognize, and hold inviolate, ambassadors. They fostered international trade with Europe.

Chingghis Quan was much more than "a murderous thug on a horse". If you want one of those, try Richard the Lionhearted, any of the Crusaders who stormed Jerusalem or Byzantium, any Muslim warlord or Tamerlane. "[L]ittle better than a Blood or Crip"? I don't think so. History doesn't either.

[eddiespaghetti]

Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.

Didn't Josephus describe him in detail in "The Jewish War"? Do you deem Josephus unreliable on this point, and if so, why?

Tx

es

[orionblamblam]

> Didn't Josephus describe him in detail in "The Jewish War"?

Nope. From "Antiquities of the Jews:"
"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."

That's not a whole lot of detail. That's also more like someone accurately recording the beliefs of another group. It should be noted that Josephus himself was *not* a Christian but a Jew; thus he was obviously not convinced that Jesus was the Messiah (or otherwise... he'd be a Christian).

As to whether Josephus was unreliable... seems unlikely. However, it's true that he neither recounted great detail unavailable from the first four books of the NT, and neither was the information available to *him* sufficient to cause him to believe.

Consider: assume a group of people who believed in Alien Superfriends In Shiny Gold UFO's (Asisgufoians) came to your town. The local paper described them and their beliefs in factual terms. Let's say their belief was that John Wayne was sent to Earth as the only begotton son of the Galactic Overlord. Now, if the local paper reported that "the Asisgufoians believe that John Wayne was sent to Earth as the only begotton son of the Galactic Overlord," does that lend credence to their belief? Or does that simply describe what their belief is?

That there were Christians in 93 AD is not exactly a shocking revelation.

[muir_redwoods]

Your "statesman" killed thousands and thousands of innocent people for self-agrandizement and empire building. All else is window dressing.

Thug on a horse, one of many throughout history

[PzLdr]

So did Alexander the Great, most generals of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar, the previously mentioned Richard I [at least Chingghis spent a good deal of his time in his kingdom], the Crusaders, the Muslims, Tamerlane, Napoleon, and all the happy Christian participants [both sides] in the Thirty Years War. So when it comes to horses in history, climb down off yours.

Compared to western "civilization" [remember Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin?], Chingghis Quan is small change. And the pluses of his Empire outweigh the minuses.

[eddiespaghetti]

oohps! my mistake!

Tx. for the info.

es

[MitchellC]

Khans existence is pretty definitive. Jesus is described at best by hearsay, and much of it vastly unreliable and fantastical.

Are you seriously taking the position that Jesus didn't exist as a historical figure?

That's a view that seems to be held only by an extreme minority of historians. Extreme in size and ideology.