>"It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. You are, of course, free to interpret the Bible differently—though isn't it amazing that you have succeeded in discerning the true teachings of Christianity, while the most influential thinkers in the history of your faith failed?"
You know what? Fuck Sam Harris, the Church Fathers, based on their own understanding of things at the time, were right.
To them, heresy was EXTREMELY dangerous, because as far as they knew you had to believe exactly the right things to get to Heaven. If you didn't, when you died you might go to Purgatory, but it was much more likely that you would go to Hell, and suffer eternally in a void deprived of God's presence. Hell was the worst possible fate, and believing heresy was a sure-fire way to go there.
So under that set of circumstances, with that set of beliefs, why wouldn't you deal with heretics extremely harshly? They're the equivalent of poisoners, of mass murderers. The damage they can do, the eternal suffering their teachings can visit on innocent souls, is too great for them to be allowed to persist. Sure, you have to give them a chance to recant, but if they won't better to kill one soul than condemn thousands to Hellfire through inaction.
>religion is evil because religious people justified torture of minorities with religion
>scientism isn't evil even though it managed to justify worldwide persecution of people who didn't want vaccinations for decades and still going
"It's not fascism when WE do it"
>>510432
>To them, heresy was EXTREMELY dangerous, because as far as they knew you had to believe exactly the right things to get to Heaven.
>They're the equivalent of poisoners, of mass murderers. The damage they can do, the eternal suffering their teachings can visit on innocent souls, is too great for them to be allowed to persist.
So what has changed between then and now?
How about a historical mysteries thread? I don't think it's too necessary to draw a line of significance. We can trust each other to know what's appropriate for /his/.
Also, I think we can agree that we don't need to hear about the Dyatlov Pass incident again.
I'll start with one that's pretty known but still interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taman_Shud_Case
I found it interesting that a few others were found dead in Australia with the book near them. The brother of the opposition leader in Singapore was also found killed with the Talmud Shud.
I'll help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript
>>508836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_Masks_Case
So what CAN we know?
Nothing
The dick
>>508041
Ourselves
Why were German helmets so much better?
Cause they look cool. I think it was the French Adrian helmet that offered the best protection. Brit helmet was shit tier.
>>506007
Because they based them off the medieval sallet helmets
>>506060
While the Brits based theirs off the their kettle hats
Is mythology dead? Have we already seen the end of legends?
>>501773
>>501773
this is but the beginning
>>501773
Mythology is pretty much religious stories. So no.
Not to mention a lot of polytheistic religions survive today like Chinese Folk, Shintoism, and Hinduism.
Getting a bit tired of "greatest battles" or "greatest generals" threads.
Let's have a Greatest Individual Warriors (pre-gunpowder, of course).
It can be from any time or era as long as we don't include the aforementioned gunpowder and it can be from any continent.
My vote goes for Harald Hardrada.
>Rough childhood, had to fight since his teens
>Exiled, has to pick up mercenary work to survive even though he has royal blood
>Wants to marry a qt Slav princess but can't until he proves himself a great warrior to her father
>Is such a great fighter he ends up being the leader of the Varangian guard and leads them to victory after victory only suffering a debatable defeat
>Gets rich off the Byzantines' vaults, comes back home
>Gets his throne back
>At age 50 something goes raiding to England where he suffers a fatal defeat at the hands of the sneaky King Harold who surprised the unarmoured and nearly unarmed, divided raiding party
>Still manages to take 40 men down in his final effort before he's put down with an arrow to the neck
Not to mention he was tall as fuck (King Harold promised him a 7ft deep grave, as he was "larger than most men").
What's your pick?
Marcus Cassius Scaeva
>>483369
Funnily enough, he was on my top 5 and for years he occupied the top spot.
His actions against Pompey's legions still leave me in awe every time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard
>At the Battle of Garigliano he single-handedly defended the bridge of the Garigliano against 200 Spaniards, an exploit that brought him such renown that Pope Julius II tried unsuccessfully to entice him into his service
It's time for another /Islam. Pepper your angus because this thread will be full of autism, shitposting, and additions to the NSA watchlist.
Let's try to focus mainly on early Islam following the death of the Prophet up through the fall of Baghdad (So 632ad to 1258ad). I mostly know about stuff through the end of the Umayyads.
Ask, learn, and post good reads for those interested.
>>473587
Here's good read number one. Blankenship goes into how Jihad and dhimmitude was one of main things driving the Ummayad economy. By making it hard for non-muslims to convert (thereby ensuring they had a steady revenue from the dhimmi tax) they unwittingly set the stage for their own demise.
>>473630
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpLF4pO3QgQ
Many of Professor Blankenship's lectures are also available on youtube like this one about whether or not the Quran was edited.
I'm kind of drunk so I'm gonna confess, even as someone who hates muslim apologists and thinks islamophobia is a word only used by faggots and pussies, I really fuck with the best Islam has to offer and I wish more muslims were badass muslim philosophers like Al-kindi or mystics like the sufis.
there's something about a noble, dignified, god-fearing arabian/desert civilization that's always tickled my fancy. fucking get it together already you mooks
Why are they so dickrided? They were complete failures and even behaved more like bandits than knights. Was there any non shit knight order anyway?
>>511974
Teuton wankery is a Germanophiliac meme.
>Was there any non shit knight order anyway?
Hospitaller?
>>511974
The paladins of the order of St. george
They were failures, but the Pollack / Lithuanian / Russian view of them as pure evil is the same magnitude of idiocy.
Philosophy has progressed dreadfully slow compared to its lovechild science. Most philosophers think this is due to the lack of an equivalent to the scientific method.
So what would a scientific method for philosophy look like? The socratic method, and then some? Some sort of programming language that can have logic used instead of loops, and data structures? What do you all think?
>>510521
Philosophy is an artform for those who don't do any actually productive work in the ivory tower
>>510560
you are an idiot.
Most people don't know what philosophy actually is. Thanks Dawkins and other new atheists who simply dismiss it so they don't have to have actual arguments.
>>510569
>you are an idiot.
Were gnostics right or not ?
lol no
Some of their theories are interesting to look at from a catholic perspective (old and new testament gods are different beings) but a lot of it is horseshit
Most of it seems to be a case of inventing history and applying later philosophy to Christ.
Do we have any historical data that supports the gnostic version of events?
Ignoring for moment the fact that it may have been unavoidable/unstoppable in a Darwinian sense: Was the Industrial revolution a good or a bad thing for humanity?
Well, average life expectancy is about twice what it was beforehand, the proportion of society that can read has gone up by at least 5 times, and I can shitpost on 4chan instead of subsistence farming.
You tell me.
>>514265
/thread
>fuedalism
>cant vote
>be serf
>punished like slave
>industrial
>can vote
>be citizen
>enslaved with money
What is the purpose of government?
Protect people from other people's coercion
The way I've always seen it is that the purpose of a democracy is to prevent an autocracy, and the purpose of an autocracy is the glory of the king.
>>513833
Extract wealth from the people.
Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
This stretches all the way from the Nazis through the Soviets, Korea, Vietnam, Soviets and up to the War on Terror today.
Since deliberately misunderstanding your enemy like this surely leads to strategic errors and missed opportunities, what is the advantage of framing you enemy in this way?
>>512562
>Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
>Frames Americans as unthinking and single minded
How we portray our enemies is different than how we actually fight them. That's why we'll call them retarded goat fuckers but sit down with different small tribes to try to understand what they want out of a ruling government and how we can help them achieve their goals and ours.
>>512575
Treating Islamic radicals as rational actors pursuing coherent geopolitical aims will get you denounced as a terrorist sympathizer in American public discourse.
Could someone disprove solipsism please?
I would, but there would be no point since you're not real anyway.
Pretty sure God disproves solipsism, and I experience him as intimately as I experience I.
>>511648
That doesn't prove you exist.
>In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology there were no kings; the consequence of which was, there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throws mankind into confusion. Holland, without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchical governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first Patriarchs have a snappy something in them, which vanishes when we come to the history of Jewish royalty.
>Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian World hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred Majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!
-Thomas Paine, 1776
Is this true?
No.
>>507349
>no wars in the early ages of the world
shiggydiggy