>Over two thousand years later and Christians still haven't recovered
>its a test lol
now what?
>>2508609
The solution is that God is evil. The thing is that even if he is evil, he's so powerful that you have to worship him anyway, lol. He's like Darkseid
>>2508617
An omniscient God already knows everything, he doesn't need to test you.
Im fascinated by hamburgers.
When was the first one made?
Have they changed over the years?
What were they called in Roman times?
>When was the first one made?
North Africa in 4000 BC
>Have they changed over the years?
No.
>What were they called in Roman times?
mvttonbvrger
>>2508601
>Im fascinated by hamburgers.
>its another 'american wants to know about his culture' episode
>>2508955
shut the fuck up
you probably cant even afford a fucking hamburger.
Stop kissing Negerfüße.
"No."
*slurp slurp*
Hmmmm... Congo sour. My favorite!
Protestants aren't Christian.
>>2508539
stop destroying Europe
Were the crusades actually justified or was it just a poor excuse for the Pope to go warring with people and make up some common threat for christians to unite behind?
>>2508432
Who know.
They were pretty useful for providing fresh slave girls for the Islamic World, though.
>>2508432
GTFO OF MY CONSTANTINOPLE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>2508432
Always wondered if people who keep saying Deus Vult were just being ironic or if they actually believed in that shit.
Is this the name of the God the Jews worship?
Is Yahweh/El the same God that Christians worship (the father of Christ)?
>>2508425
Yes. This is the Canaanite god El, the god of the Hebrews an therefore Christians and Muslims as well.
YHWH IS EL.
This is what you pray to every time you get on your knees, hope youre not pissing off any other diety..
>>2508425
Yahweh is Allah
The religion of the earliest Hebrews which was to become Judaism is the ancient Canaanite religion. This is fact.
Also it began as a polytheistic religion. That's why you see things in Genesis like "Man was created in OUR image", or like in Job where God addresses a host of other deities who are in heaven with him.
How many of you genuinely believe you would be happier in an earlier time?
For me it's 1900-1960. I grew up with many relatives from then and things seemed genuinely happier even if simpler/not as wealthy. Things like how tight families were and how easier it was to get one.
The 1960 and 70s because i enjoy having multiple sexual partners and ingesting a lot of drugs
>>2508426
>70s
That's literally the worst decade in US history outside of the 30s by every objective metric.
>i enjoy having multiple sexual partners and ingesting a lot of drugs
You can have that today too.
>>2508446
Yeah, but I'd have a better sound track bacl then.
*Blocks your path*
*unzips hammer*
>>2508401
Oy vey I don't have time for this I must go practice more usury in the Temple.
Romans! Romans help!
>>2508401
If I slap you around a bit you'll turn the other cheek, right?
Oh by the way you look a lot like Pantera, are you his son?
Why didn't the Germans focus more heavily on the battle of Britain?
>britain utterly btfo in france
>had to retreat at dunkirk leaving most of tanks and anti air weapons
>have a tiny island of soft rolling hills easy to conquer
>all germany needs to do is beat the raf and get a landing and conquering the island will be easy
>give up before finishing the job
>invade the soviets
>now have to fight a two front war and deal with constant bombing of civilians by eternal anglos
Could someone explain this to me?
Why did the Nazis give up before finishing the job?
What made beating the RAF so hard?
Also do you agree with the statement "Churchill couldn't have won the war but he could have lost it"?
Thank you for your time.
>>2508365
>all germany needs to do is beat the raf and get a landing and conquering the island will be easy
Because they got stuck on this point. Which is actually 2 separate points, both of which are likely out of Germany's reach. They could neither beat the RAF nor could they actually sealift the sort of force necessary to conquer England. (Which is another point entirely that I doubt I can address within the character limit but could touch upon if you want me to)
>What made beating the RAF so hard?
For starters, winning wars in the air is hard. Every time you escort a bomber sortie, your fighters are tied to something that's slow and vulnerable. That robs you of one of the chief advantages in an air to air engagement, speed. Furthermore, assuming you actually want to hit what you're aiming at, your bombers usually need to be relatively low to the ground, and if your fighters are to protect them, they need to be with the bombers, low to the ground.
The intercepting force has no such restriction, and it's usually an advantage to be higher up at the start of an aerial engagement. But tactics of escorting bombers aside, the real killer is quite simple. Britain was producing planes and training pilots considerably faster than Germany, and was better at retaining pilots; an ejected pilot in Britain went back in the cockpit the next day if he wasn't hurt on the crash. A German one almost certainly took up residence in a PoW camp. Long term, Britain wins this fight, especially since they're downing Germans faster than the Germans are downing Brits.
>Also do you agree with the statement "Churchill couldn't have won the war but he could have lost it"?
I mean, I guess. Churchill could have buckled and negotiated with Germany despite Germany's lack of existential threat to Britain. There's really very little more than what Hitler historically did to bring about the end of the UK; and about his only chance is to "shock" them into surrender or at least armistice.
>>2508365
Such a smug face
i wonder if part of it might have been not wanting to pull the US in which an actual invasion of Briton might have. there was also a lot of forces on the Island and it'd have been pretty hard to actually mount an invasion. Hitler seemed like he'd rather just cause enough damage and hope it'd force the Brits to sue for peace but he underestimated their resolve
What lasting impact did the Ostrogoths leave in former Roman territories?
>>2508334
Well they apropiated roman culture and they were ruling over italians, but when the bizantines attacked Italy to get it back it was mostly depopulated by the trrible war.
"This is Ostrogoth to me" is an Italian variant of "This is Arab to me" aka "I can't understand any of this"
The fact that they're still alive in popular culture like this is a sign of lasting impact I guess
>>2510024
>"This is Arab to me"
I think you're looking for "It's all Greek to me," because I've never heard someone use Arabic to refer to undecipherable foreign speech.
Is world government possible and necessary as Asimov said?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO0sCs8jI4k
Government is naturally unstable so no.
>>2508292
Secular humanism is a hell of a drug.
>possible
Sure
>necessary
Sounds like the perfect powderkeg for inefficiency, corruption and tyranny.
We would be better off with some sort of coalition.
Can we have a discussion of native american philosophy?
Anyone recommend good books on this?
>>2508285
Currently reading about Teotl.
>>2508289
>Native
>American
>Philosophy
I was talking to a friend about what we should do with churches and mosques when religion inevitably becomes extinct and we couldn't agree.
I said we should just bulldoze them to the ground but he was saying that they should be repurposed and used for something else, although he couldn't think of what other purpose the buildings could lend themselves to.
TL;DR: What should we do with churches and mosques when they are abandoned?
in many places they're already being repurposed as housing, restaurants, bars, museums, etc.
>>2508277
The Japanese still have shinto shrines despite the fact hardly anyone believes in the gods. They are just part of the local tradition and the local families of means support them for it.
Thats what should happen in the west
>>2508277
>bulldoze them to the ground
kys
Was colonialism a benefit for Africa?
I would say everywhere but the Belgian Congo
>>2508273
Yes and no.
>>2508273
Is this thread a benefit to /his/?
>The more violently they debate you, the more they know you're actually right.
Is this true?
>>2508165
Of course not. Someone can be vehement about just how offended they are by someone being wrong, especially if that wrongness is persuasive for some reason.
>>2508165
No. This can be true in certain cases, but this should not be accepted as a general truth unless we want every handicapped autist spewing garbage smugly mention this and think they have won when other people get annoyed about them being retarded and ignoring logic.
However, when someone is violent at their very first response, you can assume that they are desperately want to deny something they fear.
>>2508180
ignore my grammar in the second part
>sure, we'll look the other way while you re-arm
>sure, we'll look the other way while you re-militarize the rhineland
>sure, we'll look the other way while you annex austria
>sure, we'll look the other way while you dismember our ally
Clearly, ((((((((((Britain)))))))))) was hell-bent on war with Germany.
Poor Chamberlain. Just wanted to stop another horrific war.
>>2508161
>wanted to stop a war
>literally declared war on germany for literally no reason out of nowhere
>>2508122
>annex Austria
Never happened, fuck off