[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: mary.jpg (381 KB, 1280x1811)
381 KB
381 KB JPG
Why do Catholics worship Mary?
no one loves Mary. This is 1980s bait. Try again, and tell your pastor that she's wrong.
but I have a question my Catholic friends
We don’t.
We ask her for help and to pray for us.
Most everyone already has their heels dug in on this topic though, expect pretty awful discussion.
no one WORSHIP Maria
sorry guys :/
She real. She helped me a lot.
Because it pisses Redditors like you off.

File: 1670182655802083.jpg (88 KB, 1024x1024)
88 KB
>be cradle catholic
>decide to read church history
>ecumenical councils
>no papal infallibility
>other caths try to convince me that history is wrong because of some out of context quotes
Wtf is going on? Are the Orthodox right?
22 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
I'm saying it was a poor justification, and on its own it's not nearly enough to cause any schism, no matter how small. All the reasons listed for the split (from both sides) are bs.
Papal Infallibility is such a fringe item of Dogma - covering only proclamations made by the Pope ex cathedra - that it’s incredibly unimportant.
It’s only a hot button issue because critics of the Church use it as a scary phrase (to insinuate Catholics believe the Pope himself is infallible like mewling cultists), poorly catechized folks like yourself, and LARPcaths who don’t actually know the religion.
There’s plenty of shit to be concerned about but this is hardly one of them.
Roman catholicism is about submitting to the pope as a man ascended into godhood. Everything else is utterly irrelevant because the theology is completely different from one catholic to another.
>Source: your ass
As opposed to...?

File: sl.jpg (76 KB, 602x448)
76 KB
If Spain never owned any territories in the modern united states as the american like to generally claim, then how was it possible for them to mobilize and garrison troops in Louisiana to defeat the British during the American revolutionary war? Did they just do that in a giant desert they had no control of? Sound weird to me.
66 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: xre7xa1fb1p91.jpg (439 KB, 2878x3600)
439 KB
439 KB JPG
File: Photoroom-20240519_211329.png (490 KB, 1280x1160)
490 KB
490 KB PNG
I thought spics claim they're not native goblins
They do, except for when it inconveniences them. You should see the number of people on boards with flags that post the Amerimutt meme who are from Latin America. They genuinely don't see themselves as mixed to any degree and get pissed as fuck when confronted with the reality that they are.
/pol/tranny meltdown

File: BMAC.png (150 KB, 450x335)
150 KB
150 KB PNG
>exists for over half a millennia
>traded heavily with Mesopotamia and the Indus valley
>had an impressive and sophisticated material culture
>completely disappear from the pages of history and are unheard of until the 1970s
are there any other civilizations like this?
4 replies omitted. Click here to view.
>The Egyptians were considered that until the 19th century.
Not really, most people believed the first civilization was the anti-deluvian one until the 19th century
>Not really, most people believed the first civilization was the anti-deluvian one until the 19th century
Fair enough. I suppose I meant scholarly. However there is a point to be had there. Ubaid 0 peoples do seem to come not long after the estimated rise of the Persian Gulf. And there was evidence of boat commerce between the Western and Northern shores indicating a cultural connection. Who knows what's down there, but it'll probably not be found because it's murky as shit and there would be 1000s of years of sediment over the top of what could be there
The persians
Bactria-Margiana Archeological Complex
Graeco-Bactrians were the most advanced horsemen of the ancient world.
the chaldeans are sorta like this

>irreparably subverts the teachings of Christ
15 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
File: 7657657.jpg (122 KB, 640x817)
122 KB
122 KB JPG
That isn't Saint Augustine though
"Lol it's ok to kill if it's for a "justified cause" like if your king tells you to lol."
heh, I'm an atheist and have no part in this but I always get a chuckle when Christians mock mohammad for getting revelations in his dream, like dude know your own religion please.
I also read a scholar who argued that Paul and almost all early Christians assumed Jesus would return in their life time and thus wrote accordingly. It's very interesting to read his letters with that in mind, his opinions about marriage etc "lmao who cares" make more sense
Augie was a proto-shitposter
>Not so fast you son of a bitch
^This pic turned me into a Gnostic btw. It will you too if you think about it too long.

File: IMG_7432.jpg (1.15 MB, 1170x1354)
1.15 MB
1.15 MB JPG
Do Christian’s really not masturbate and/or confess to a priest every time they do? And believe they might be sent to hell if they die before being forgiven? Ridiculous.
52 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: forgivemesister.jpg (845 KB, 2160x3840)
845 KB
845 KB JPG
christians masturbate in front of nuns
Well when a priest rapes a kid, do you think they confess it? Of course they don't. Because even if they know they will not face any consequences for their actions, they also inherently know that this sort of information can be used against them as blackmail and not even the supposedly most holy of humans are above that. So no. Like most normal humans they'll confess to the small time, non-embarassing stuff and keep the real bad stuff under their hat.
I'd wonder if kids could pick up on being sat down and talked to sincerely about the dangers of unchecked masturbation. Whether that'd work or if you have to go with ooga booga burn in hellfire forever because you jacked off to a supermodel.

You're either a fucking autist or that's some real fucked up friends.

>"Shit our friend is missing, let's stop and try and find him"
>"oh god I hope he's okay"
>"Oh god please let's find him"


>"Hm, reginald, I do hope that jeffrey has indeed confessed else he will burn in hell forever"
>"Shall we go searching for him, Jacob?"
>"No, I think not, it's in god's hands."
Ah so you're a "Non-denominationalist" queer. Why are you so afraid to just say that?

I'm a non-denominationalist chad btw.
No masturbation is a sin because lust is a sin. Nobody masturbates while thinking about their wives except for cuckolds but they are also practicing a separate sin of not being the man of their household.
If you truly (keyword "truly") intended to confess but couldn't due to circumstance God will forgive them regardless.

File: QinShiHuang.jpg (857 KB, 1200x1815)
857 KB
857 KB JPG
What are some historical times an actual super villain actually won?
37 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: Pol_Pot.jpg (101 KB, 800x1009)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>rises to the top of supervillain cabal
>amass guerilla army
>actually topple former government/military
>rule for years, mass murder 1/4th of population in most cartoonishly evil fashion possible
>even after regime topples, spend the rest of your life relaxing in rural retirement cottages with your harem, die peacefully of old age

He won.
File: 1716249823831750.jpg (26 KB, 549x492)
26 KB
I'm disgusted by this man but I cannot help but think that he and his legalist ideology is extremely impressive
>inciting terror more than 2000 years after his death
Cao Cao
>Ancient China transitions from Gaijin control to Rice Farmers
>Genocide follows soon after, China stagnates until zthey return again

File: 1715576585350387.jpg (195 KB, 1000x871)
195 KB
195 KB JPG
What are we gonna call the middle ages when they're no longer the "middle" ages, relative to the present?
It's been called the middle ages for over half a millennium. Suffice to say it's never going to stop; we'll just come up with new periods of modernity like early versus late.
It is in the middle betwixt the classical era and the renaissance. It is not "middle" in the sense of being a mathematically precise date between now and the fovnding of Rome.
? Back then it was even closer to present day

File: Mckinley.jpg (32 KB, 330x409)
32 KB
>America's best President by a country mile
14 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Hawaii is VERY strategically important. It’s the Gibraltar of the Paxific; it HAD to be possessed. To leave it in the hands of any other powers would allow them to use it as a staging post to attack the American west coast. Hawaii becomes the forward defense of the USA; anyone that can read a made comes to this conclusion..

Cuba is not nearly so important. The Americans already have possessions in the Caribbean, and in fact they have possessions in Cuba (Gitmo) to this very day. So the stakes in the pacific vis-a-vis Hawaii are much higher than in the Caribbean and Cuba.
Read a map*

So in conclusion, in the central pacific there are no other suitable bases, but there are other predatory powers; where as in the Caribbean there are other suitable bases and no other predatory powers. Very different
Cry some more
>boys club
Shabbos goy or Jew
they already had a lease on Pearl Harbor, just sign an alliance lmao

File: ii.jpg (6 KB, 177x285)
6 KB
Can I a Catholic venerate orthodox saints?
51 replies and 11 images omitted. Click here to view.
>You make a big thing of a temporary fight between two jurisdiction. It has ALWAYS, been like that in the Church.
Thank you for proving my point. So when the Palamites claim their is a single church they lie,
>The Church is not only one inwardly, but also outwardly. Outwardly its unity is manifested in the harmonious confession of faith, in the oneness of Divine services and Mysteries, in the oneness of the Grace-giving hierarchy, which comes in succession from the Apostles, in the oneness of canonical order. (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 3rd Edition, pg 240)
There is no outward unity in the Palamite communion, and according to you this has ALWAYS been the case.
Ergo the church isn’t limited to a single institution.
>Still the outward unity is : same faith
Which I will showcase is not true, but we will get to that in a second.
>same liturgy
Are Old Believers part of the Outward unity? They liturgy is different?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
>same mysteries
Le mysteries, I’m not going to bother with this one.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>To assume your opinion you think the orthodox church is just "palamist churches"
You assumed wrong.
I think all orthodox churches are orthodox churches, whereever their is true faith practiced and the deposit of faith preserved (it might not be 100% intact, exactly how the apostles did it, no church has that for varying reasons).
>and that anti-chalcedonians, nestorians, catholics, some protestants also are totally valid too.
No, I think that some Miaphysites, Church of the East, Palamites, Catholics, Protestants etc. are part of the Church. It’s not limited to an institution. THE Church is 1, the faithful are spread across many institutions. See Mark 9:38-40.

>You think there is only a mystical church you assume false again, I believe in the visible church. It can be seen in the faithful and their actions just as the man in Mark 9 was visible. Just as communities such as the Amish are visible. I don’t look at the Amish and then “well I’m sorry you may have dedicated your entire life to Christ, but since you don’t follow the 5th council of sneed and feed you aren’t a real Christian and are hell bound”.
>and disagree with the oeucumenical councils
I agree with many of their conclusions but I think they errored in place. I’m not unique in this stance, the Palamites can’t even agree
1) what makes an ecumenical council just that there are 7 of them
2) what parts are infallible, because recently there are now parts of the Palamites communion that want to cherry pick parts of the council as infallible and toss out other parts. And that not even mention the other councils Palamites are bound to like Jerusalem (1672).

>you just are like most protestant or modern who think God doesn't really care about these questions.

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>The idea is that Christ founded a true church to keep his legacy.
Literally no Christian thinks Christ founded a fake Church.
>That's confessed in the creed :
"I believe [...] in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”
Correct, now point to where it says “I believe in one church which is exclusively bound to a visible institution”.
>A church accepting the seven ecumencial councils
Presupposition, why 7, why not 3?
And which 7, was Hieria the 7th?
Your standard of “Orthodoxy” seems already self referential to what you have already decided / been told is Orthodoxy.
>and so the doctrine defended by them
Well if I take that stance than I need to side with the Old Believers because the other Palamites attacked and persecuted them despite them holding perfectly to the conditions YOU have previously established. Since there can only be 1 visible institution (again by your standard) the moment the Mainline Russia Church started its persecution (& the other churches maintained communion with them) the Old Believers became the sole vestige of Christs church because the church can’t persecute itself right??
>with priest and bishops validly ordained, in communion with other churches in the same case.
See above, that leaves only the Old Believers.
>So a chalcedonian orthodox canonical church. Apostolic succession, no heresy,

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
To clarify When I say “Old Catholic” I mean Catholic in full communion with the Magisterium but I consider myself to hold to the Older Catholic views that are fundamental and more faithful uphold the deposit of faithful, which have been more clearly clarified in Vatican II, rather than a TradCaths (I do not like that term) who obsesses over aesthetics and/or holds to Feenyite Doctrine.
You can call me a Vatican II Catholic if you would like but I prefer the term Old Catholic.
Not the poster you replied to. "Old Catholics" is a term referring to the schismatics that rejected the Vatican I council. Just accept the LARP and join the Tradcaths, we're fun!

File: IMG_1362.jpg (1.31 MB, 989x1273)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB JPG
I’ve often seen it be claimed as nothing but a “dark age of barbarism, ignorance, and obscurism” and that the Church and Germanic barbarians are all to blame for 1,000 years of progress.

Now, I do think the Dark Ages existed for some time during the early medieval period, and I do consider the Fall of Rome a big setback for Europe (key word: Europe; MENA and Constantinople were still thriving, and there’s a whole other world in China and India), but I still feel it’s more or less an overstatement. Or at least it can’t get any worse than the early modern period, which was full of barbaric acts like witch trials, chattel slavery, and systemic genocide. But what do you think about this era of Europe? Are there some kino moments still worth looking at? Or is it at least worth looking at other civilizations of that era?
16 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
The failure of the Crusades and the Pope vs HRE feuds gave the Church a black eye. That said a lot of memes about the Dark/Middle Ages came from Enlightenment propaganda and the era of the Reformation was way uglier and more brutal than the Middle Ages.
there were multiple renaissances that occurred post-classical europe; the italian renaissance of the 15th century is just the one we are most familiar with

technically speaking none of those renaissances fully restored the glory of rome; in fact, it took until the industrial revolution to gain those aqueducts back

at the same time those renaissances were still in some ways artistically and technologically more advanced than the romans

clocks, agricultural methods, firearms, etc.
the Roman Empire was absolutely shit for the common person, a vast slave plantation with no middle class
>medieval europe was nothing but a dark age
nothing but a renaissance myth and revisionism by mainly a italian faggot and people seeking to be known as 'intellectuals'
though you gotta admit that the upper class romans had it much better than any upper class until probably the victorian times

>6/7 were MENA

Which one is your favorite?
23 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>5/7 designed by white people
3 designed by asiatic greeks and 2 by those brownoids >>16652609
I still hate the Ottomans for looting the Colossus. It should have been restored.
wewuz status?
you arent EEF or CHG therefore you have no relation to the ancient MENA peoples.

File: 123.jpg (219 KB, 1200x649)
219 KB
219 KB JPG
Why did protestant colonization turn out better? Racism?
37 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
I recall Montreal being Catholic
canadians have always been lickspittle to their king
except maybe the metis
america is great if your not so poor that you have to live in detroit.
>Canada is catholic clay
You're just living on it, protties
Weren’t a crapload of the French “Catholics” actually Huguenots who “converted” to Catholicism, so they could get a free passage to North America, so the actual French Catholics wouldn’t continue slaughtering them?
Literally no Huguenot practices have survived the trip across the pond because there were so few actually taking to the sea rather than going to the Netherlands, so you tell me whether that's actually relevant or not.
Calvinism and calvinist-adjacent sects might as well never have existed over here.

File: PaulieWalnuts.jpg (75 KB, 429x619)
75 KB
How did the mob actually make money loansharking? Managing debt is actually really hard and requires a lot of brains. Not even the best fin ivy educated wizards in the world can manage distressed debt alone and stay in business for very long, and people going to wise guys are the lowest of the low in terms of credit worthiness. Plus, why even go to that extra step if you're a criminal anyway, why not just steal their car or whatever, why do to the extra steps in justifying it in a non legal way?
14 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>how did thugs make money by loaning cash at 1000% monthly interest rates
it's a mystery anon.
Another classic I haven't seen mentioned is forcing their wives into prostitution, so they have whores who won't complain or run away because if they do the gangs will hurt their husband or trash their home and traumatize their kids.

There's an entire storyline in The Sopranos about Tony giving his gambling addict high school friend a massive loan and then use that as justification to take over his business and run it into the ground while stealing everything that isn't nailed down and maxing out every credit card and legitimate loan possible. Same with Goodfellas, the whole "fuck you, pay me" scene.
you assume they loaned out fat wads of cash to any retard off the street, of course they'd look at a guy and see if there was other shit they might take if he had no cash, like cars, properties etc.

same as banks really only mobsters break a couple of your fingers every week you don't pay on top of taking your stuff
Dagos do the dirty work, Kikes do the books.
Simple as

File: 1695266875959243.png (1.12 MB, 648x864)
1.12 MB
1.12 MB PNG
Are the samurai the most overrated warrior caste in existence?
20 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: 1716297255270509.png (230 KB, 736x960)
230 KB
230 KB PNG
>fujo disagree
Well well…
>Sengoku Jidai has a rich history of lunacy, intrigue, and heroes
This kind of thing is why the samurai were cool as fuck
They were good at fighting with the shit they had available, same as everyone else but they had great style
Also come upvote my cock if you say shit like "bushido didn't exist until some journalist wrote it" and "samurai were never a caste until hideyoshi" because fuck you okay there were a "class" of armed retainers and yes there were built in expectations for them to behave a certain way. It's not far fetched nobody values cowardice or disobedience from your fucking household guard of course they have a standard to maintain
fucking weebs ruin everything
File: EternalWolverine.jpg (336 KB, 1202x604)
336 KB
336 KB JPG
>Sin City
No they didn’t, Tokugawa united the country in 1600
Hoplites don't look cool? Bait, 100%.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.