(Part 2) Best christian bible history books according to redditors
We found 94 Reddit comments discussing the best christian bible history books. We ranked the 32 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Sebes was one of the greatest managers of all time, implemented ideas like the sweeper keeper, deep lying forward and the total football philosophy at a time where tactical thinking was lacking and mostly confined to kick and rush football.
Having a glut of great players come through at the same time didn't hurt of course.
Jonathan Wilson's new book is on the Golden Team and is out now -
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Names-Heard-Long-Ago-Hungarian/dp/1788702263
(this isn't an ad, as much as it reads like one)
Greg Woolfe: Rome, an Empire's story. It was one of the set books for my degree.
Rome: An Empire's Story https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0199677514/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_vd.vDbYGXJCV7
There's a book associated with the movie, as well.
It's published by Harper Collins, which appears to be a publisher oriented towards fiction.
I'd feel more confident that there's going to be "evidence" if the publisher was a well-respected academic press like Elsevier or Oxford. So far, I can't find any evidence that actual archaeologists are talking about this.
I recommend The Fruit Palace for a good read about this topic.
[Good news]( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615430937?ie=UTF8&force-full-site=1 "I have this book, but have not read it yet.")...
> i ask you to explain to me, how the average person has the required level of knowledge on politics to make informed decisions about who should run state?
It’s not necessary to explain this to you because the question is entirely irrelevant. It is a very narrow and parochial understanding of knowledge which becomes apparent if you reverse the question: How can any one individual, or small group of select individuals, have the required knowledge of the populace to make informed decisions about how the state should be run on their behalf?
The issue is not whether "the vast majority of people” have or don’t have "the required level of knowledge on politics” because they don’t need whatever this specialist knowledge is to have specialist knowledge of their own lives and families.
In fact, for that matter, specialist knowledge of the kind you are talking about is highly disputed, is not a well-defined object that can be learned or not and is the subject of endless debate - in a democracy at least that’s true. Under a dictatorship you can simply have dissenting voices silenced.
> … dictatorships are less pleasant but democracies are just as corrupt as any dictatorship its just far less obvious ...
That is absolute rubbish. I mean it’s not even a different point of view, just actual palpable nonsense.
The only way in which that statement could be true is if we were to extend the meaning of ‘Democracy’ to include countries like North Korea as they are named the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea or Zimbabwe or any other places which ostensibly have some form of democracy, let’s say Nigeria, but where corruption is absolutely rife and not even “far less obvious” but plain to see to anyone from the minute they wake up in the morning to the moment they go to bed at night.
The important point there from your argument is that the issues of corruption in the latter ‘democracies’ have absolutely nothing to do with the form of government they have, or who is in power at any one time, or whether or not the populace at large have what you call "the required level of knowledge on politics to make informed decisions”.
Corruption exists in democracies such as the US or the UK and so on. But so do burglary, murder, extortion, rape, riots, inequality and any number of other crimes and injustices. A democratic system is not a promise of utopia and was never meant to be.
You’re a student so you’re young and it’s fine to hold pompous and silly ideas for the sake of shocking older people such as myself, but if it really is the case that you have actually "done considerable research” into dictatorships and democracies, then perhaps you could tell me what your thoughts on. The Open Society and Its Enemies: Volume 1: The Spell of Plato as I have to say your comments are rather suggestive of the idea that you think a dictatorship ruled by an elite class of selfless and benign philosophers would be just as good, perhaps better, than a democracy.
You could also, for instance, look at books such as these and explain where you can find anything comparable happening under a functioning democracy (and not e.g. those I mentioned before):
Stasiland: Stories from Behind the Berlin Wall by Anna Funder
The Wilder Shores of Marx: Journeys in a Vanishing World by Theodore Dalrymple
Shah of Shahs by Ryszard Kapuscinski
Nothing to Envy: Real Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick
The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in the North Korean Gulag by Kang Chol-Hwan and Pierre Rigoulot
Judging medieval polities by modern standards is stupid, since as you said we have to throw medieval Christians under the bus as well. Compared to Europe, many Muslim lands were better for Jews at the time, and for non-orthodox Christians (heretics).
It's obvious you don't like Islam or Muslims, and have projected the modern divisions in the middle East back into the past, which has given you a highly distorted view of those times, in order to justify your dislike.
As I said, the reality was far more varied, complex, and changed many times over the centuries. The earliest Muslim empires relied on the conquered Roman and Persian administrative structure (aka, Christian and Zoroastrian) to run the empire, and did not use force to convert the native population. This state of affairs continued for 2 generations, as some of the native elite converted to Islam and took over administrative control from the Arab conquerers.
You might try reading more about this early history and try to understand it in its own context, rather than making poor comparisons to today's world.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Crescent-Dramatic-Encounters-Christians/dp/0143034812&ved=2ahUKEwip_tOakaPjAhVtk4sKHXdHBHsQFjAKegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0cE3uXh_mtmvHkzGrTSxLP
While he's often dismissed as a mere apologist, William Lane Craig's doctorate in theology was on this topic and resulted in this monograph:
The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy
Maybe search for it in a local university?
Lots of great stuff in the writings of Ibn Warraq.
Like:
https://www.amazon.com/Origins-Koran-Classic-Essays-Islams/dp/157392198X
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but we were in the Getty Museum in Los Angeles last week on the first day of the Fantastic Beasts exhibit. The book they've created is magnificent! It's more like a compendium with fabulous illustrations and stories. You can read about the exhibit at the Getty site (through 8/18/19), order the book through the Getty bookstore, and amazon will have the book sometime in June. It's pricey ($60) but gorgeous. It'll probably be a while before your local library has one available.
Book of Beasts: the Bestiary in the Medieval World
Allan Moore and Walter Everett would be good sources for deep rock theory, with a strong focus on the 60s and prog rock. Everett also has a book.
For something little lighter (including social history), Ian MacDonald - and on 60s blues, folk and psychedelia from a man who was there, Joe Boyd.
From a hippie/anarchist who was also there, Mick Farren. (take your pick)