YMNolan Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 Hey anyone into the History Channel? I don't watch it because I don't really watch any TV, but I have a friend who's obsessed with it and considers it like a near impeccable source of factual knowledge. He esepcially brings it up to me when he's just seen some religious/Christian themed show. I guess my questions is how reputable is the History Channel? Is it like a really good source for the breakthroughs of today's scholars? Or is it just cashing in on a channel title that suggests it would be factual? That's probably not clear at all but I'm just wondering if there are any Catholics out there who watch the programming and could provide their perspective on it's worth/credentials.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 I like the History Channel but find their religious shows lacking. I believe they try to make controversy where there is none.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus Posted February 1, 2006 Posted February 1, 2006 its good.... sometimes its biased though
magnificat Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 I used to watch it sporatically when I was in undergrad and had free cable. It's not bad in terms of accuracy. Obviously, there's some things lacking when they cover Christianity & esp. the Catholic Church, but it's not the worst out there. And like most things, story-telling is inherently involved for which there obviously a story line you're trying to get across or a shape that you want to give it. Overall, I enjoy it because I'm pretty bad when it comes to actually reading books about history.
ReinnieR Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 i'm not a big fan of the history channel they're inaccurate just check out their article on Halloween [url="http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/halloween/?page=origins"]http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/hal...n/?page=origins[/url] compare to [url="http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=25832"]http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=25832[/url]
ReinnieR Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 it's funny that you brought up the history channel because i have it open in one of my tabs in firefox. i was in the process of sending them an e-mail about their error hehehe
YMNolan Posted February 2, 2006 Author Posted February 2, 2006 Thanks for the help! I guess I'll just have to check it out for myself. I did see one advertisement on THC recently for a feature on codes in the Old Testament. It was really laughable. They were claiming that our computers can decode hidden prophecies in the OT that could never be revealed before. Maybe it was the way they advertised it, but I couldn't imagine anyone taking it seriously.
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Besides an "emphasis" I don't see much difference in the articles, but I do love costume parties! Peace!
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Besides an "emphasis" I don't see much difference in the articles, but I do love costume parties! Peace!
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Besides an "emphasis" I don't see much difference in the articles, but I do love costume parties! Peace!
peacenluvbaby Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 Besides an "emphasis" I don't see much difference in the articles, but I do love costume parties! Peace!
ReinnieR Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 nuh uh the history channel says [quote]By the 800s, the influence of Christianity had spread into Celtic lands. In the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV designated November 1 All Saints' Day, a time to honor saints and martyrs. It is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday.[/quote] this says that "t is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday." which is not the case it said that in the 7th century (600's) Pope Boniface the IV designated November 1st All Saints' day which is before the 800's how are we trying to replace the festival when we don't even know about the festival yet and it wasn't Pope Boniface IV that designated it November 1st. Pope Boniface IV designated it May 13 Pope Gregory III desigated it November 1st and Pope Gregory IV opened it up to the whole world
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 [quote name='ReinnieR' date='Feb 2 2006, 11:33 AM']nuh uh the history channel says this says that "t is widely believed today that the pope was attempting to replace the Celtic festival of the dead with a related, but church-sanctioned holiday." which is not the case it said that in the 7th century (600's) Pope Boniface the IV designated November 1st All Saints' day which is before the 800's how are we trying to replace the festival when we don't even know about the festival yet and it wasn't Pope Boniface IV that designated it November 1st. Pope Boniface IV designated it May 13 Pope Gregory III desigated it November 1st and Pope Gregory IV opened it up to the whole world [right][snapback]873068[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The statement 'it is widely believed ...' is probably not false, but is hard to verify. Saying that something is believed by people is different from saying that it is true. That being said, it's a weak statement because it doesn't say how wide the belief is nor does it say when this belief in All Saints Day being a replacement for Halloween came about. I would say that this is a weak statement, but it cannot be said to be grossly inaccurate, as there are people who believe many Christian holidays replace pagan holidays. And the sixth centry does occur in the time period 'by 800.' If say we will have a new president by the year 2100 and we get a new one in 2008, then our statement has come true. The History Channel article doesn't lack accuracy, rather it lacks precision. The existence of Irish Holidays would probably have been known by this time. The thing about who made the holiday, however is inaccurate. It looks like the HC tried to sum up several events into one. The thing that neither article really hammers home is that Halloween is mostly an English/Irish holiday. It isn't celebrated widely in other parts of the Christian world. Many people attack the church because we have holidays associated with Pagan festivals. My favorite one is when people accuse Easter of being a celebration of the fertility goddess Estre whereas the name of Easter isn't related at all to Estre in Latin or most other languages.
morostheos Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 I watched their special on the DaVinci Code - it was mediocre at best. Sure, they presented both sides of the story, but there were maybe 5 minutes of Church representatives speaking and about 60 minutes of this lady who wrote a book on how Mary Magdelene and Jesus were married.... blech.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 I get annoyed when ridiculous theories are presented (and never refuted) and given equal status with others.
Snarf Posted February 2, 2006 Posted February 2, 2006 History International is much less dumbed-down, I find. HC is just too mainstream to be really relevant or thought-provoking. Remember that special they had on the Black Death to jubilate over the avian flu? In their portrayals of 14th century Europe, the Sicilians were speaking modern Italian, the Parisians were speaking modern French, and the Freibergers were speaking modern German. That's just no fun; I love to hear medieval languages spoken.
YMNolan Posted February 3, 2006 Author Posted February 3, 2006 [quote name='thedude' date='Feb 2 2006, 03:47 PM']I get annoyed when ridiculous theories are presented (and never refuted) and given equal status with others. [right][snapback]873418[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I hear ya. I guess they're worried if they presented the Church's side of things it would explain away people's reasons for not trusting in the Church. What a shame it would be to have to face the truth!
cmotherofpirl Posted February 3, 2006 Posted February 3, 2006 THe History Channel is cables version of the National Inquirer. Take everything with a grain of salt.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now