In the case of Theodosius and Charlemagne, I don’t see why we should be surprised they were harsher on their active political rivals (the former fought a civil war against a man backed by pagans, and the later fights along his border with pagans) than a group that could not conceivably challenge them in anyway.
“I think the Jews are notable for being the “only ancient race to survive antiquity”. We probably all know one or two Jewish people. How many Acheuleans or Mousterians do you know?”
Writing shit down does not equate to actual supremacy
Well I said survive not reigning supreme over others. They emerged from the bloodshed of the ancient world with their culture/traditions/most bloodlines preserved. They’re basically the only ones to do so
I find it weird that people think this way about Europe. I think it is a pernicious lie that we adopted some time during the Dark Ages and reinforced again during the Enlightenment, and now reigning supreme in the modern era. This idea that somehow Europeans lost their culture/traditions/most bloodlines. I find it odd. Aren't people like us examples of the fact that it was not lost?
Because the Ancient World was a ridiculously bloody and cruel place. When different cultures went to war, especially in Europe and the near East, it often meant the complete extermination of a bloodline or culture. How many Swabians do you know? The Jews are really the only ones to emerge from antiquity with the same blood, traditions, and culture that they started with
Yeah, but we aren't Swabians. Greeks are still alive and have access to their culture even though its not enforced by the state like in ye old golden days of yore. French, English, Irish, Finns, Estonians, etc etc. I really don't agree with this idea of yours - and besides, don't you argue that their religion changed after Christianity? And how can you not admit that they are much more mixed genetically than your average European? The joke is that they fucked everyone, including animals and children. And are they really practicing what the Israelites practiced? Do they have the same culture?
I know its pedantic, but specifics would be nice. I view them as a mongrel people, much more than your average Englishman for example.
It would be accurate to say that all Modern Jewish groups have a common Levantine ancestry, but that is about as far as you can go. It varies tremendously.
Modern Jews have varying degrees of the same blood. European Jews are anywhere from 60-80% European in genetics, for instance, majority of that being Southern European (appears to be Italian) with a minority of Central European (West Slavic or Germanic, or both).
Other Jewish groups are less. Sephardic, for instance, lack the Central European ingression. We have cemeteries from the high Middle Ages that demonstrate this admixture sometime after I believe it is 1200 AD.
Some groups, like the Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews and Indian Jews also distant.
Uhh the random insertion of the muscular furry into here is a bit strange, but I think a lot of this is pretty reasonable to say, and we don’t actually disagree. I didn’t say that Jesus meant only to preach to the Jews, I said that the primary goal of Jesus was to convert the Jews, and then the secondary goal was to convert the gentiles. Like, while the conversion of the Jews is not ready (as the Jews have “hardened their hearts” to Christianity) the primary goal moves down to the conversion of the gentiles, and if the Jews were converted in full, then the primary goal would become the conversion of the gentiles. It isn’t functionally that relevant, but it shows a continued special position of the Jews within Christian theology. And again, God isn’t ditching the Jews due to their rejection, since it is still foretold that the Jews will eventually convert. You see it in that Romans 11:25 quote — Israel has received a hardening of heart **until** the full number of gentiles has come in. Basically, the Jews will be the last to convert. It’s at this conversion where God’s promises to the Jews will be fulfilled.
Onto the subject of Christian treatment of Jews, one thing which must be clarified is that anti-Semitic beliefs don’t cause activity which erodes Jewry. Like I said, Augustine supported the continued existence of the Jews but wanted them to suffer for their stubbornness and become an example. It’s this condition which has actually made the Jews so scrappy. They’re ghettoized everywhere they go, but the church is careful to discourage eradication of Jewish communities. So they just end up becoming very resistant to assimilation. Meanwhile the approach of heathens has generally been much more typical of what you usually see happen to cultures we never hear about anymore. Their culture is suppressed and when they acted up they got massacred, but they weren’t walled off into their own little quarters really.
Christian persecution of Paganism was worse than Pagan persecution of Christianity. People like Nero and Diocletian were more of an exception than a rule. Although, I suppose it depended a lot on the provincial rulers. But generally Christianity was allowed to be practiced openly, the main point of contention was Christian objection towards public rituals (which some saw as a sign of disloyalty and disrespect towards the Emperor)
The actions of Theodosius and Charlemagne aren’t relevant for their ferocity towards Pagans, but towards how differently they treated Pagans and Jews. Jews were also factually incorrect under Christian doctrine but were persecuted far less severely, despite being a foreign people who actually held contempt for Christ and were blasphemers. Again, I’m not trying to argue that Christians were unreasonably brutal and disrespectful towards Pagans and their artifacts and sites. It’s the fact that they were doing this to basically their own cultures. Roman Christians defacing the marble sculptures their great great grandparents built, and Anglo-Saxons comparing themselves to Jews and their ancestors to the evil gentiles, is not the same as Alexander sacking Persepolis. This is the case especially for the Romans, and to a lesser extent with Charlemagne and his actions towards Germanic pagans. Because, again, I’m not really one of those people who views Charlemagne as a monster for this, but I do view it as telling that he treats pagans of similar heritage to himself much worse than Jews from the levant.
And for the record, no I don’t think “Christ is God and the Messiah” is the same as “2+2=4”. Since the days of the Old Testament there has been an element of faith in Abrahamism. You cannot simply rationalize every element of Christianity, revelation plays a huge role and revelation is ultimately empirical. Yes, you can point to many things in Christianity and say that this suggests it is probably true, but that is not the same as something a priori. There are also mystery elements that some consider not truly comprehensible, like the trinity. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but 2+2 is pretty much true by definition of every term it uses and simple logical deduction.
P.S. how are Jews the only race to survive antiquity? Greeks, Chinese, Persians, Assyrians, etc still exist. And groups like Germans and Balto-Slavs just diversified more. Also, don’t judge Germanic Pagans solely based on whatever Nietzsche says. He was living in the 19th century and was not Pagan.
Idk why everyone is making a big deal about the furry picture, it’s a meme that the Fursona crosses its arms during debates right before they drop a heater and the picture is from the first page of google.
The Chinese, Greeks, etc survived antiquity but didn’t preserve their unique cultures and traditions from ancient times anywhere near where the Jews did. For example, the Chinese subraces and cultures of antiquity are all amalgamated into the mutt Han race. The same can be said for the Greeks. Sort of a tangent tho
Not a bad post. I studied the Bible for a few months in college, It was mostly a cross-comparison of synoptic and the handful of other contemporarily written gospels about the life and death of Jesus. You got into the books I hadn't yet, and made a fairly good argument sympathetic of the church fathers and early Christianity. I have to admit I myself have not enough learning to effectively argue against this. Fair play.
WILL FERREL BLEACHSCOPE THIS CRINGE FURFAG AND SEND HIM TO NIGGERHELL!
Like the post.
In the case of Theodosius and Charlemagne, I don’t see why we should be surprised they were harsher on their active political rivals (the former fought a civil war against a man backed by pagans, and the later fights along his border with pagans) than a group that could not conceivably challenge them in anyway.
“I think the Jews are notable for being the “only ancient race to survive antiquity”. We probably all know one or two Jewish people. How many Acheuleans or Mousterians do you know?”
Writing shit down does not equate to actual supremacy
Well I said survive not reigning supreme over others. They emerged from the bloodshed of the ancient world with their culture/traditions/most bloodlines preserved. They’re basically the only ones to do so
Clearly you don’t go to the Mesopotamian time traveling wizard club
I find it weird that people think this way about Europe. I think it is a pernicious lie that we adopted some time during the Dark Ages and reinforced again during the Enlightenment, and now reigning supreme in the modern era. This idea that somehow Europeans lost their culture/traditions/most bloodlines. I find it odd. Aren't people like us examples of the fact that it was not lost?
Why do we glorify jews so much? It seems odd.
Because the Ancient World was a ridiculously bloody and cruel place. When different cultures went to war, especially in Europe and the near East, it often meant the complete extermination of a bloodline or culture. How many Swabians do you know? The Jews are really the only ones to emerge from antiquity with the same blood, traditions, and culture that they started with
Yeah, but we aren't Swabians. Greeks are still alive and have access to their culture even though its not enforced by the state like in ye old golden days of yore. French, English, Irish, Finns, Estonians, etc etc. I really don't agree with this idea of yours - and besides, don't you argue that their religion changed after Christianity? And how can you not admit that they are much more mixed genetically than your average European? The joke is that they fucked everyone, including animals and children. And are they really practicing what the Israelites practiced? Do they have the same culture?
I know its pedantic, but specifics would be nice. I view them as a mongrel people, much more than your average Englishman for example.
It would be accurate to say that all Modern Jewish groups have a common Levantine ancestry, but that is about as far as you can go. It varies tremendously.
Modern Jews have varying degrees of the same blood. European Jews are anywhere from 60-80% European in genetics, for instance, majority of that being Southern European (appears to be Italian) with a minority of Central European (West Slavic or Germanic, or both).
Other Jewish groups are less. Sephardic, for instance, lack the Central European ingression. We have cemeteries from the high Middle Ages that demonstrate this admixture sometime after I believe it is 1200 AD.
Some groups, like the Yemeni Jews, Ethiopian Jews and Indian Jews also distant.
Hating conclusion paragraphs is so real.
Did you see I cited your who killed Jesus thing again
Byeah, u r so real 4 dat 2
I love you layne
Ily2
How does anyone take that guy's criticism of Christianity seriously? It's like he doesn't know a single drop of the faith!
Sectionalism is a very intelligent man and provides a pagan viewpoint that we otherwise wouldn't have (of quality). Also he's funny.
He doesn't even have a consistent worldview it's just a neopagan frankenstein project. Run along now meat rider.
Faggot.
Your mother.
Uhh the random insertion of the muscular furry into here is a bit strange, but I think a lot of this is pretty reasonable to say, and we don’t actually disagree. I didn’t say that Jesus meant only to preach to the Jews, I said that the primary goal of Jesus was to convert the Jews, and then the secondary goal was to convert the gentiles. Like, while the conversion of the Jews is not ready (as the Jews have “hardened their hearts” to Christianity) the primary goal moves down to the conversion of the gentiles, and if the Jews were converted in full, then the primary goal would become the conversion of the gentiles. It isn’t functionally that relevant, but it shows a continued special position of the Jews within Christian theology. And again, God isn’t ditching the Jews due to their rejection, since it is still foretold that the Jews will eventually convert. You see it in that Romans 11:25 quote — Israel has received a hardening of heart **until** the full number of gentiles has come in. Basically, the Jews will be the last to convert. It’s at this conversion where God’s promises to the Jews will be fulfilled.
Onto the subject of Christian treatment of Jews, one thing which must be clarified is that anti-Semitic beliefs don’t cause activity which erodes Jewry. Like I said, Augustine supported the continued existence of the Jews but wanted them to suffer for their stubbornness and become an example. It’s this condition which has actually made the Jews so scrappy. They’re ghettoized everywhere they go, but the church is careful to discourage eradication of Jewish communities. So they just end up becoming very resistant to assimilation. Meanwhile the approach of heathens has generally been much more typical of what you usually see happen to cultures we never hear about anymore. Their culture is suppressed and when they acted up they got massacred, but they weren’t walled off into their own little quarters really.
Christian persecution of Paganism was worse than Pagan persecution of Christianity. People like Nero and Diocletian were more of an exception than a rule. Although, I suppose it depended a lot on the provincial rulers. But generally Christianity was allowed to be practiced openly, the main point of contention was Christian objection towards public rituals (which some saw as a sign of disloyalty and disrespect towards the Emperor)
The actions of Theodosius and Charlemagne aren’t relevant for their ferocity towards Pagans, but towards how differently they treated Pagans and Jews. Jews were also factually incorrect under Christian doctrine but were persecuted far less severely, despite being a foreign people who actually held contempt for Christ and were blasphemers. Again, I’m not trying to argue that Christians were unreasonably brutal and disrespectful towards Pagans and their artifacts and sites. It’s the fact that they were doing this to basically their own cultures. Roman Christians defacing the marble sculptures their great great grandparents built, and Anglo-Saxons comparing themselves to Jews and their ancestors to the evil gentiles, is not the same as Alexander sacking Persepolis. This is the case especially for the Romans, and to a lesser extent with Charlemagne and his actions towards Germanic pagans. Because, again, I’m not really one of those people who views Charlemagne as a monster for this, but I do view it as telling that he treats pagans of similar heritage to himself much worse than Jews from the levant.
And for the record, no I don’t think “Christ is God and the Messiah” is the same as “2+2=4”. Since the days of the Old Testament there has been an element of faith in Abrahamism. You cannot simply rationalize every element of Christianity, revelation plays a huge role and revelation is ultimately empirical. Yes, you can point to many things in Christianity and say that this suggests it is probably true, but that is not the same as something a priori. There are also mystery elements that some consider not truly comprehensible, like the trinity. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but 2+2 is pretty much true by definition of every term it uses and simple logical deduction.
Will respond to dis tomorrow after I return from the Saiyan Stasis Chamber
Forgot to respond to this but perhaps we can use this topic for the triumvirate Chudstack
P.S. how are Jews the only race to survive antiquity? Greeks, Chinese, Persians, Assyrians, etc still exist. And groups like Germans and Balto-Slavs just diversified more. Also, don’t judge Germanic Pagans solely based on whatever Nietzsche says. He was living in the 19th century and was not Pagan.
Idk why everyone is making a big deal about the furry picture, it’s a meme that the Fursona crosses its arms during debates right before they drop a heater and the picture is from the first page of google.
The Chinese, Greeks, etc survived antiquity but didn’t preserve their unique cultures and traditions from ancient times anywhere near where the Jews did. For example, the Chinese subraces and cultures of antiquity are all amalgamated into the mutt Han race. The same can be said for the Greeks. Sort of a tangent tho
Not a bad post. I studied the Bible for a few months in college, It was mostly a cross-comparison of synoptic and the handful of other contemporarily written gospels about the life and death of Jesus. You got into the books I hadn't yet, and made a fairly good argument sympathetic of the church fathers and early Christianity. I have to admit I myself have not enough learning to effectively argue against this. Fair play.