Is Nicean Christianity objectively the most homosexual religion to ever exist?>You must worship a man>And if you don't worship that man, you'll be sent to a BDSM torture dungeon to be whipped by Satan (also a man)
>>18270380>>18268051
>>18270390im not muslimi just think its funny that christians hate gay people so much when the religion is very male centric/male worshiping i dont even necessarily dislike christianity
>>18270409It’s true though, I agree with you. Asian religions are gay coded inherently. It’s a Mouse Utopia coping mechanism. I really wish I could blow a load in this one Turkish girl’s pussy. Muslims produce the sweetest women. :(
>>18270380no, al zutt made islam the gayest in existance
your religion has all that too, and your prophet was a BBC slut
Is this verse more about general charity i.e give *some* to the poor but not everything, or is it a "whitey on the moon" type shit where you shouldn't spend money on anything else while poor people still exist?
>>18270157Still they didn't see any prizes in the rest of their material lives for selling all their possessions and following Jesus if they didn't get killed
>>18270157>all the stories of apostle getting martyred were created more than a century after they diedDo you have any proof of this?
>>18270481You should be less polite to Atheistic scum and not accept claims without any evidence such as the one he made.
>>18270613His proof is that he doesn't think it happened
Everything Jesus says makes more sense when you remember he was preaching an imminent apocalypse and his followers (and a lot of Jews that were dissatisfied with the Romans/temple leadership) thought the world would end in less than a lifetime.
What the fuck was all this about?
>>18269431>What the fuck was all this about?He's the creator of monotheism, which was copied by the Hebrews and thus lead to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
>>18270577>Saar we inherited Monotheism from Ancient Egyptians. Remember saar our kike forefather prophets were all in Egypt from Abraham to Jesus. Saar do you know about the Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele? It's the ONLY place God chose to mention the chosen people. Saar we have nothing to do with Mesopotamia we are Eastern Mediterraneans and we built Egypt saar so please don't associate us the Alien Black Magi sorcerers of Mesopotamia saar.Kek
Did the Indians receive money in exchange for becoming the current scapegoats of discourse here?
>>18270678>saaaar
>>18270675misusing saar is the quickest way to spot a thirdworlder by far, its only usable for indians and anyone with even basic reading comprehension can spot that immediately. Its like accusing a Jap of lying to preserve his Izzat
>"life does not come from non-life">is composed of non-life
>>18270936>Life is not reducible to bits that mediate it.Yes, it is.
>>18270949Please show me how the carbon atom #137,668,791,551 in my left toenail is alive.
>>18270951It's not, which is the point. You, a living thing, are built out of non-living things. The arrangement is what life is, life is not a thing-in-itself. This is why Knechtle and the general creationist buzzphrase "life can't come from non life" is retarded.See >>18270441
>>18268322People seem to have a hard time grasping the concept...it's not as if "life" is magic, it's simply the term we use to describe a certain type of chemical & physical processes.
>>18270958>You, a living thing, are built out of non-living things. The arrangement is what life is, life is not a thing-in-itself.Right, which is why I said "Life is not reducible to bits that mediate it." You're paraphrasing me but still somehow disagreeing with me.
Why is Judaism passed maternally?
>>18270942Because that way if you lose a war, get invaded, and the other nation or tribe proceeds to rape your women, your tribe and culture doesn't die out, and you cannot be assimilated.
Ok so let me get this straight>Greeks are fighting Turks in Anatolia>Turkey is supported by soviets and meme shitholes like Azerbaijan and Bukharan SSR>Greeks are supported by the greatest European powers (UK, France)>Greeks have slighly more manpower>Greeks have a lot more equipement: rifles, machine guns, cannons, trucks, cars and aircraft>Have british officers and instructors>Suffer defeat after defeat and pull out with higher losses than turks>100 years later cry how it was unfair and how turks outnumbered them 100 to 1 and how if it wasn't for the ebil anglo they would have owned all of AnatoliaAre greeks retarded?
>>18269504OP I know it sounds silly but it's unironically this
>>18269504>They were winning albeit badly overstretchedWinning in the Greek fashion, that is to say, the Pyrrhic tradition.
>>18269504>>18269911was monkey a Turkish spy ?
>>18268721Turks are unironically more competent that greeks are
>>18268721Sevres was too harsh and proved impractical to enforce so the Italians, French and British switched sides. Turks proceeded to thank their Christian allies by genociding the city of Smyrna.
Forget WW1 Germany, I have a real challenge for you /his/.Is there any way Japan could have won WWII? Starting in 1937, you can take whatever strategy and approach you wish, including going the Siberia route and disregarding SEA.
>>18267238Also untouched resource in Sakhalin and far eastern federal district.
>>18266725Pretty much. The only way for Japan to win World war 2 was to not fight it. Long term plans should have relied on supporting public revolts in Indonesia and then establishing ecenomic relationships with them to have their own oil and rubber supply.
>>18269873Given the bloodthirst the american people held for the japs after pearl harbor, which would likely have grown even more if they won major battles like midway, it seems untenable for the US government to negotiate any kind of peace that wasn't under their terms and there was little chance of Japan actually exhausting the US as that would require actual troops in america.
>>18270423I thanked American admiral for open up Japan own isolationist in 1853. May ungrateful Chinese and Korean bastards suffered.
>>18267671Japanese air bomb most T-34 junk.Finland and Ukraine are proof.
forgiveness of sin (deror) in the old testament meant a debt cancellation (jubilee), this was abolished by the pharisees, jesus tried to return debt cancellation and was persecuted for it.if you look at the early history of islam, zakat was quite literally an introduction of the debt jubilee into a usurious society filled with debt slavery that had accumulated too much debt to fully function, this is why the theme of forgiveness is so prominent.now how exactly did zakat function in the earliest generations of islam? everyone nowadays believes zakat is some form of personal charity you give to some random bum or your mosque and thats it.in reality, it was originally collected (this is why zakat is annual) and distributed to free muslims from debt slavery, with duty being eventually being completed when every indebted muslim had reached the nisab (something like a starting capital) of 85-90 grams of gold (10.000 usd today), giving the community financial autonomy and financial freedom to fight for its cause.this is actually a lot more extreme than the biblical debt jubilee, which was every 7 years or so, and only erased the debt, meaning you were simply left with no money to spend.when you realize this shift in perception, its clear why muslims nowadays are so unsuccessful compared to their pious predecessors.
>it's teh fault of the british that our farmers are all retarded and don't know how te crop diversify or somethin'
>>18270930Air fairmers need t’ grow da tatoes
>>18270930>>it's teh fault of the british that our farmers are all retarded and don't know how te crop diversify or somethin>fuckin Irish
tldr at the bottomI am a Trivialist. I believe everything is true. Yes. EVERYTHING. >b-b-but that's inconsistent because you would have to believe the statement "trivialism is false" is true which refutes your own theory!Actually yes, I do believe that. I fully accept it. It is indeed true that Trivialism is false, and it's false because it's true. I have no problem accepting this. You cannot refute Trivialism because Trivialists will always agree with whatever my opponent says. It's trivially true! (pun intended lol) But also, you can refute Trivialism, because everything is true, since by definition Trivialism is true ;) No matter what you cannot refute me. Go ahead, radical skeptics, I dare you, try and debate me. You literally will never win. Trivialism is an undefeatable position. >how do you know it's true!A simple paradox arising in classical logic, called Curry's Paradox, strongly implies it, since by this paradox you can conclude everything is true. The only way to avoid it is either to disallow self-referential statements like Curry's Paradox, which I honestly think is arbitrary, or to accept some really niche non-classical logic which is counter-intuitive to how we normally reason. Accepting Trivialism though gives me the benefit of accepting all options though! :)tldr; Trivialism is the belief that everything is true and you cannot refute it.
>im 14 and this is epic
>>18270886Do you have an argument?
>>18270904According to trivialism, that is an argument.
>>18270843>It is also true that I have absolutely BTFO'd you in this debate, utterly butt raped your argument, and owned you, embarrassing you before everyone!But I don't concede this, whereas you do concede that you have been buttered. In a debate it ultimately matters how things appear to third-party observers and while you can keep saying you won after literally conceding and even humiliating yourself, no audience will be impressed by that. Again you can claim via trivialism that they are impressed and persuaded but that would just be a sad delusion in your head. Trivialism requires flat denial of reality.
>>18270924>buttered*buttraped
Did the north/eastern and south/western Germans embrace different branches of Christianity because they always felt they had different identities, culture, mutually unintelligible dialects etc? Sort of similar to eg. the Irish and the English, or the Poles and the Russians or what it was like in the balkans etc.
If these maps included Switzerland, which is half Protestant, people would not be compelled to say such retarded things. The Protestant-Catholic split is not cleanly north-south, it's only vaguely correlated. There are also Catholics in Lower Saxony(as seen on OP's map).
>>18270297I can't help but wonder what a protestant HRE would look like
>>18270430Probably not much different as both the catholic and protestant estates of the HRE were keen to preserve their independencies (often called princely/german liberties) in the face of a central authority. Emperor Ferdinand II. faced huge opposition from the catholic estates during the 30 Years War as he was amassing too much power for their liking. They forced the emperor to dismiss Wallenstein as the supreme commander of the Habsburg army in 1630, as the Catholic estates saw him as one of Ferdinand II. greatest pillars of support. In turn the protestant estates rejected to aid Friedrich V. of the Palatinate as he tried to secure the bohemian throne. They saw this as a blatant grab for power by Friedrich V. that would destabilize the realm and even before the crisis in Bohemia he managed to alienate the members of the Protestant Union with his authoritative behavior.
>>18270304reminds me of french chuds saying the northern french were culturally protestant and thus superior to southern french
>>18270816I wish i could remember what that guy's name was, so sad that occitans got culturally genocided, the language is quite beautifulhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CogOs2jMnGI
Was it autism?
Historically speaking why are trad catholics such hypocrites when it comes to Iconoclasm? The same people who brag and laugh about the cutting down of Donar's oak and the dismantling and destruction of pagan temples will then proceed to cry about protestant iconoclasm and muzzies destroying images of the virgin mary. The same people who will vociferously mock pagans and express glee in burning their temples and cutting down their groves suddenly turn to innocent victims when protestant kings looted monasteries and when protestant reformers destroyed idols.What causes this?
>>18270605All families of the Earth. Gen 12
>>18270611All the families of the earth have been blessed because God has allowed them to know the law.
>>18270491Because Iconclasm is, at the end of the day, practical.
>>18270763>You don't care what God thinks.
>>18270491because it contradicts, they hate and wanted to destroy all european culture but not the religion that believes their god is literally boiling in shit in hell and that his mother is a whore.
>>18270737Most are pretty indifferent to it, they just think it's wrong and also might think Jews are going to he'll but they think that about a lot of people.
Jews don't exist, those who say they are jews are of the "synagogue of satan".Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.so sayeth the lord, amen
>>18270874Serious question, how do you explain Matthew 15:27? Jesus refuses blessings to a non-jew woman but accepts out of pity because she compares herself as a dog eating crumbs that fell from jews table. And Galatians establishing quality for all people under the Christ reign was written by Paul way after jesus death
>>18270874The 144,000 who will reign with Christ are all Israelites. 12,000 from each tribe.
Or a deontologist or according to any other specific normative theoryI think utilitarianism is correct. But I think you shouldn’t act as a utilitarian. I don’t mean this in the trivial “the best way to bring about utility isn’t to consciously aim at it,” sense. No, I really think that even if you had a guarantee that some action maximized utility, sometimes you shouldn’t take it.Instead, you should act as a sort of pluralist, taking seriously different moral theories. This is because you ought to have significant moral uncertainty and take seriously the possibility that you’re wrong. You shouldn’t risk significant wrongdoing in the possible scenario where you’re wrong about which moral theory is right.Suppose I could violate lots of people’s rights to slightly increase aggregate utility. I wouldn’t do it. My best guess is that probably the action is okay. But if it’s not okay, I’m doing something really really wrong. You shouldn’t risk doing stuff that might be extremely wrong for the sake of small benefits. You ought to take moral uncertainty seriously.In practice, this generally means trying to do things that are robustly good according to many moral theories. You should especially focus on what those theories hold is most important, rather than just moderately important. Deontology cares an especially large amount about not violating rights, so you should make an effort not to violate rights. Utilitarianism cares an especially large amount about doing good effectively, so you should do that (it helps that every other plausible ethical view recommends that too). https://benthams.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-faq?utm_source=publication-searchYou might reject this pitch for pluralism if you don’t have any significant moral uncertainty. I can think of two reasons why this might be:You might just be very confident that you’re right.
>>18270527This is also one reason I’d be in favor of taking actions to reduce the number of abortions (though I’d be against banning abortion). The pro-life view holds that we routinely kill millions of people. Even a small chance they’re right is enough to make reducing abortions a good thing. I’d support research on figuring out ways to reduce embryo death, because most fertilized embryos die before reaching maturity. Even if there’s only a 1% chance that this involves the death of a person, the problem of embryo death is about as bad as a 1% risk of a virus that would kill most of the population. That would be pretty serious!So in practice, even if you’re pretty convinced your favorite moral theory is right, you shouldn’t act according to it. You should act according to a pluralistic mix of the leading moral theories. That means even taking seriously the insights of views that don’t strike you as very plausible.
>>18270524>If you're a deontologist and you try to minimize rights violations you're actually a utilitarian
>>18270527>Even if you suspect that Longtermism is wrong, given how enormous the stakes could be if it’s right, https://benthams.substack.com/p/longtermism-is-surprisingly-obvious under uncertainty, you should take Longtermist considerations pretty seriously. My view is that the impacts of our actions on the long-run future are potentially many billions of times more significant than their impact on the short-run. Even a small chance that’s right makes safeguarding the far future important.Now you just sound like a pascal's mugger.
>>18270508Isn't this guy some goober? I'm subbed to his stack but the few times ive interacted with him he seems to support views that make me scratch my head. I also have a stack but people say I write in a very obtuse manner.
>>18270508>I really think that even if you had a guarantee that some action maximized utility, sometimes you shouldn’t take it.Then you must have some misunderstanding about what utility is imho.>You shouldn’t risk significant wrongdoingIf you have a guarantee, it's not a risk.I completely sympathize with your epistemic humility and I think it's an incredibly wise thing to do - in the end we know only that we know nothing - but it does seem to me like you're conflating utility with something it's not supposed to mean.
