How much more advanced would the world be today if Christianity never existed? Has there ever been a stronger force of societal and cultural regression in history?
If Atheism never existed we'd all be reunited with God in the Millennial kingdom by now.
We would be colonizing galaxies if it weren't for christcucks.
>>2118908
Although you're memeing, assuming that there would be no other monotheistc religion rooted in slave morality, power voids and decentralisation, the world would be materially a much worse place.
The defining features of the West and in particular the Western culture for innovation that was first extant in the late Middle ages and characteristic of the Renaissance and ages to follow, was the rule of law, sophisticated legislature, and individual agency.
The Catholic Church was the single greatest civilising force in the West, arguably more so than Rome. They were the first to create a multilevel bureaucracy similar to the modern state, the corporate chain and other sophisticated bureaucracies - the Roman Empire was unable to impose an uniform set of laws over most its' dominion. The Catholic Church also was the first institution to enable individualized property contracts, the first to prohibit incest and promote bureaucratic meritocracy in the West through the practice of Bishopdom. Papal legal scholars were the ones to recover and compartmentalise the Justinian Code, and without that Western legal tradition and a safety net as well as an enabling backbone for inventors and great artists would never have been possible
What is the name of branch of linguistics that examines how vocabulary changed over time?
>>2118858
etymology
>>2119032
>etymology
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
>Historical Linguistics
the study of the history and development of languages.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>call everyone with better living standards and enough food to actually feed people "decadent"
>he has never heard of the concept of over eating.
>>2118786
I mean I think the concept is forever relative. Those who consume more,not just food, will generally be considered decadent. People generally think their life is the normal human experience. Cause I mean for them it is.
>>2118796
And I guess people in the USSR at the time never heard of the concept of eating :^)
Jesus was a terrorist.
nah but Muhammad definitely was
>>2118776
he didn't commit any terrorist attacks
the 'sword' verse was an accurate prediction of turbulent times
Muhammad, on the other hand, conquered lands, killed people and sold others into slavery. Also had schizophrenia. Would have been killed in a drone strike if he were alive today
I never quite understood why the Serbs killed Franz Ferdinand.
Anyone who could enlighten me on this?
Seems to me, that he wasn't the person they should have assassinated.
But i might be completely wrong.
>>2118639
>Seems to me, that he wasn't the person they should have assassinated.
No, but the majority of human history can be summed up as "bad idea in hindsight".
>>2118657
Thats not really what i meant.
Ofcourse, when we look at it now. It was a terrible action. That escalated a large part of the world into war.
Although Germany already were hungry for war, and used is as an excuse.
But what i mean is. I dont understand WHY they killed him.
>the eternal serb
If you were 99 years old, nearing death and somehow had access to a nuclear button - would you push it?
>>2118579
Yeah why not
>>2118579
No, because I generally like the world more than I'd like an irradiated wasteland and expect to leave behind family and friends who I'd like to have good lives after I'm gone.
Seriously, are you just being an #edgemaster or is there a fucking point to this question?
>>2118579
Immediately and without hesitation. My only regret would be that I had to wait until I was 99.
>human life is sacred
>one thing is another thing
>>2118563
>its a communists dont acknowledge natural rights episode
>>2118618
>Natural rights
Is this a serious position in the US? Because in Europe it's only something that (god knows why) lawyers pretend exist.
Do Christians on /his/ support witch burning?
Why/Why not?
>>2118560
If I thought witches were real I would, but no I don't.
>>2118560
>ywf you realise that witch hysteria is significantly more of a renaissance/early modern phenomenon than medieval
>yfw people became MORE superstitious as time went on
>Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Exodus 22:18
no because i selectively believe and/or disbelieve the parts of the bible that i want to out of intellectual cowardice
What if instead of clutching on to religion, people held on to different schools of thought? I know that religion in a sense is dogmatic, but what if instead of claiming "I'm a Christian" or "I'm an atheist", people instead said stuff like "I'm a stoic" or "I'm a hedonist"
>>2118446
No one goes around saying "I'm a Christian" or "I'm an atheist" anyway so your point is moot.
>not just barking at people
>>2118469
Do you really believe that?
What went wrong?
Imperialism.
>>2118413
>when fp isn't bp
Serious answer
>republic falls
>there is now little to nothing preventing military coups other than the personal political capital of the emperor
>it is impossible to reduce funding to the military without being unseated in a coup
>Rome has a huge military
>Rome supported massive increases in government spending using the booty from newly conquered territories
>Rome runs out of territories to conquer
>Rome now has to spend money to administer and defend existing territories
>thanks to high levels of urbanization and trade, tax base is wiped out by plagues
>since you can't cut down military funding, the burden of paying for said huge military falls upon the farmers
>tax burdens from said large military and expensive empire become so intense that farmers are the first people to die during famines
>intense tax burdens prevent population from increasing to rebound from plagues
>the cycle of shrinking tax base, military coups, and economic decline is now irreversible
>????????
>fall
The East avoided the same fate by having an empire that was both cheaper to administer and more profitable to run. This being said, assassinations and palace intrigues were a constant feature of Byzantine politics, and it fucked them over quite badly.
>create a society based on self actuation and materialist amorality
>be surprised when it devolves into a system of uni-cultural consumerist hedonism
If only conservatives had been saying that people require hierarchies to do anything useful or important with their lives for centuries...
Oh wait! They have! But you didn't listen because it hurt your libtard feelings.
>>2118358
>create a society based on self actuation and materialist amorality
>be surprised when it devolves into a system of uni-cultural consumerist hedonism
Yet somehow we are better off than we were under those conservatives. Weird huh?
>>2118382
Define 'better off'
>>2118388
I get to live a life of consumerist hedonism and don't have to cling to muh unique special snowflake culture to feel good about myself.
Through ancient times all the way to the industrial revolution, being a mercenary sounds pretty cozy to me when you consider the alternatives.
>>2118140
>spending your day murdering and trying not to get murdered seems cozy
So, when are you shipping off to Syria?
>>2118146
I was thinking Ukraine or Libya actually.
>>2118140
Dying is a big con. Do you know how many soldiers, merchandise or otherwise, died of things like camp fever or dysentery?
Not getting paid is another one. It's like a royal prerogative to hire peole to do shit, which they do, and then not pay them. And that's assuming you fought on the winning side. Imagine being far from home, on the losing side of a civil war and having to fight your way back home.. having trouble with that? Then read Xenophons account.
>The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.
Why is it that people still argue over which side started the Civil War, when it was clearly the result of both parties in complete disagreement?
That's what someone says when they lose
>>2118058
After firing first.
>>2118084
>take over fort outside Charleston days after they legally secede
>when the confederates don't do anything for months you decide to send a totally not hostile fleet full of arms to reinforce captured fort
>when fort gets taken back without a single casualty you decide that it's time to make the deadliest invasion in US history
reminder that this is the same president who thought the Mexican-American war was uncalled for even after mexicans came over the border and massacred American soldiers.
W E W
So, there's a lot of discussion (mostly derogatory) of "WE WUZZING". Broadly defined, this is a claim that some group accomplished or included a social status that they never actually had, in an attempt to rewrite their history to be more impressive.
Is there any "WE WUZNTING"? A group trying to distance themselves from events in the far past?
Basically any genocide people tend to disavow themselves of.
>>2118061
Hmm, I didn't really formulate that right then. Think the classic "WE WUZ" claim. I don't know, that the ancient Greeks were really black. Contrast that to a general genocide claim, and it's usually along the lines of
>The Genocide never happened
rather than
>Yeah, the genocide happened, but someone else did it.
I guess you could have those guys who claim that the holocaust happened because of Allied bombing, but at least in my gut, they aren't quite the same thing, you know?
>>2118020
WEWUZING is a populist tactic usually employed by ideological entities and regimes, to assign a "glorious" historical heritage to their people.
Imperial Japan of the Showa Era
>WE WUZ SAMURAIS N' SHIEET YES EVEN YOU RICE FARMING IDIOT YOU WUZ SHOGUN
Nazi Germany
>WE WUZ ARYANS N' SHIEET YES EVEN YOU GARBAGE MAN YOU ARE OF ULTRA SUPERIOR WHITE STATUS
Turkish nationalists
>WE WUZ ATTILAS N' GENGHISES AND SHIIIET
etc.
I guess the opposite would be the no true Scotsman.
>Nuh huh, the holocaust isn't the fault of Germans, the nazis weren't REAL Germans
>Usury is explicitly condemned and described as sinful in both the old and new testaments, Jews were forbidden from lending with interest to other Jews and Jesus got mad at and attacked a bunch of money-lenders
>Usury is condemned by the founders and early texts of every major religion
>During this era usury was understood as lending money with any interest and not just excessive interest
meanwhile...
>Almost no Christians today care about usury, there is not even 1/100th as much activism among Christians against usury as there is against gay marriage and abortion.
>Every time politicians want to stop or regulate parasites committing extreme usury it's always conservative christian politicians who try to stop them citing "muh free market"
>most times on /pol/ (which is mostly conservative and at least 30-40% Christian) when people criticize usury-based systems like college debt or predatory lending /pol/ is quick to defend them
explain yourselves christ-fags
>>2117920
There is plenty of criticism of usury from Christians however somehow it doesn't get publicized.
It really makes you think honestly.
>>2117920
Because the west hasn't been a Christian society for centuries. That Protestantism "wealth indicates predestination " garabage
because christcucks believe in full accelerationism by this point
i.e.: the end times are so near there's no point trying to fight it any longer
hey could be worse :^) could be like isis trying to actively bring Armageddon you deluded abrahamic easy way out fucks