"The Deity himſelf cannot ſee that to be certain, Which is in itſelf contingent or that to be contingent, which is abſolutely certain. Now, what is meant by any thing being contingent, but that it either may, or may not be? But for a thing to be ſeen as certain, it muſt in itſelf be certain; and, therefore, the poſſibility of its not being muſt be excluded. Conſequently, any event being foreſeen certainly to be, is incompatible with its being even poſſeble not to be. Nothing, therefore, of which it can be truly ſaid that it either may, or may not be, can be an object of fore-knowledge, even to the Deity himſelf. To maintain the contrary is, in fact, the ſame thing as ſaying, that the ſame event is both contingent in itſelf, and yet certain to God; or that, though, in reality, it may, or may not be, yet, contrary to the nature and truth of things, he knows that it certainly will be" -Joseph Priestley, The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity Illustrated
>>18589629the argument is correct for absolute free will, but it's worthless practically for beings like us which arent omnipotent, then we, for all intents and purposes, have a (very limited and basic/shit) free will to choose.
>>18589662Choose what? This argument precludes multiple possibilities that we might choose from.
Is this really a hijab? it doesn't seem to resemble what Muslim women wear today at all. Also most Muslim women in the UK at least in places like Tower Hamlets and bradford wear the FULL black niqab with just the eyes showing. What Pakistani women wear in the current day doesn't look anything like this.
pretending a bunch of pakis in bradford are in any way representative of any european people with whom they have nothing in common is disingenuous
>>18589324Nice try, feminist worm. I'm European and you're objectively wrong; veils were extremely common since Bronze Age, as seen in garments associated with the Tumulus and Unetic cultures, for example. Celtic (la tene, Hallstatt) and Germanic women's clothing also included veils, not to mention Greece and Rome. Archeology>your opinion
>>18589324>full veil was never popular nor even common in europe outside of burial attireWhy are you being cynical? It's well known that the use of veils was extremely common in Europe. The photo in question was never restricted to funeral celebrations. The Veiled Woman of Ancient Greece demonstrates that Hellenic women wore a face-covering veil with eyeholes see>>18589107>>18589576I think he doesn't always have knowledge of these material cultures.
>>18589596>>18589576>Women should work and be free to show their uteruses in the street! If you disagree, I'm sorry, but you're a Pakistani Muslim, okay? No matter how indoctrinated I am by women.
>>18588685are the marriage veils are also hijabs?retard
If everyone's base needs (food, water, shelter) were met, humanity would grow bored and eventually self-destruct. This is why it is moral to sow conflict, so as to prevent total annihilation of humanity.
>>18588906>they haven't self-destructed yetcock is ticking
>>18588905>as whites and asians go extinct from not having kids.Why do retards think this is how this works? As birth rates go down, mating becomes less competitive, which will cause birth rates to rise again, the population is simply reaching an equilibrium, and the same thing will happen to the browns too
>>18588906The experiment with rats says that wrre on the way there... Just wait till UBI is here and then its ogre
>>18588886>This is why it is moral...According to who? It can't be God because there is no such doctrine. It cant be according to morals relativism either. Only an idiot needs an explanation as to why that's absurd.
>>18588931According to Wallahi
How much did life change for ordinary people when Rome fell?
>>18589652You are claiming that the dark ages didn’t have constant warfare. Fuck off with this dog shit b8.
>>18589572>Warfare was constantWarfare was constant in the Roman era, too. If you look at the last century of the Western Roman Empire, there was a rebellion by Magnus Maximus in 383 AD, a civil war in 392-394 AD, a war with the Goths in 395-398 AD, a rebellion in Africa in 398 AD, a multi-party civil war in 407-415 AD, another war with the Goths in 416-418 AD, a revolt in Hispania in 419-421 AD, a war with the Vandals in 422 AD, another civil war in 423-425 AD, another war with the Goths in 425-426 AD, another civil war in 427-429 AD, a war with the Franks in 428 AD, a war with the Vandals that saw the loss of Africa in 429-435 AD, another war with the Goths in 430 AD, a rebellion just outside of Italy in 430-431 AD, another war with the Franks in 431-432 AD, another civil war in 432 AD, a war against the Burgundians in 435-436 AD, a major rebellion in Gaul in 435-441 AD, another war with the Goths in 436-439 AD, another war with the Vandals in 439-442 that saw the Romans lose control of Carthage, the lynching of an Emperor in 455 AD, another war with the Goths in 456 AD, a Vandal invasion of Sicily in 456 AD, another civil war in 456 AD, another civil war in 461 AD, another war with the Vandals in 461-468 AD, more wars with the Goths in 462-463 and 468-471 AD and another war with the Goths in 473-475 AD.All of these wars would have involved several groups of thousands of armed men traveling hundreds of miles, camping in or near towns during winter, constantly pillaging for food and valuables, raping for pleasure and killing and burning the towns of all who tried to resist. If anything, outside of northern Italy and eastern Britain, the fall of the Roman Empire likely saw a reduction in the level of violence committed against noncombatants during wartime. Smaller warbands, after all, can carry less plunder, and local warlords had a personal interest in keeping productive villages and farmsteads going instead of letting them get plundered and burned.
>>18589630>>18589616 is right, though. Education was only a concern for clergy and the urban upper middle class (particularly those involved in clerical/administrative work) and nobility; this already excluded most of the population during the Late Roman era. Also, as I pointed out in >>18589405, most people in the Roman Empire lived much as they had for centuries and were not regular users of Roman infrastructure. Aquaducts were meant primarily to deliver water from sources at higher elevations to basins/reservoirs inside cities; they were not used for irrigation by a vast, vast majority of farmers, as most farmers (1) could not afford the fees associated with drawing water from an aquaduct and (2) were nowhere near any aquaducts.
Archeological evidence clearly shows that life expectancy increased and (after the initial disruption of food imports) diets improved in much of post-Roman Europe.https://www.shh.mpg.de/1851461/agricultural-practices-in-italy-after-the-fall-of-romehttps://archaeology.org/news/2026/04/30/skeleton-study-reveals-life-on-the-frontier-after-the-fall-of-rome/Basically, during the empire, most food was produced on massive slave-worked farms in North Africa and a few other regions, and shipped to the rest of the empire, where it was sold by grain merchants or distributed for free as the grain dole. Sure, having safe trade routes was good for artisans but they were a small minority, most people were small-scale farmers who struggled to compete with imported grain at their local markets.When the empire collapsed, it meant the end of grain importation. For farmers in Europe, this was good news, as they now had a better market for their produce. No wonder that in the erly middle-ages, you start seeing the first real innovations in farming technology in centuries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carruca This was because 1. local farmers had more resources 2. there was as an increased demand so they started working more fields and figured out how to farm more effectively.Aditionnaly, diets improved because people less reliant on grain (most of the imported food was grain since it doesn't spoil while it is being transported) and started eating more vegetables and pulses.
>>1858969715% of the population was educated. This is more than urban elites>most peasants didn’t use Roman infrastructure Roads and aqueducts dipshit>The Romans constructed aqueducts throughout their Republic and later Empire, to bring water from outside sources into cities and towns>Aqueduct water supplied public baths, latrines, fountains, and private households; it also supported mining operations, milling, farms, and gardenshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueductYour are gay and your revisionist arguments are shit
>Be a neutral country>Provoke no one>Still get invaded in both world wars>Engage in partisan activity leading to harsh reprisals>Suffer millions of deaths from war related famineBe Shahist Persia pic unrelated
>Provoke no onenot sure if I can HAND you that one
What would be their position on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict?
obviously top goysdue to hatred of mohammedans if nothing else
Were shieldmaidens real?They found and analysed a grave relatively recently and it appeared to be that of a female military commander, which included a tacticool game.But did the game and weapons imply a girlboss commander or just a companion of a male commander?
If vikings were using shieldmaidens the Christians would've written about such abhorrent pagan behaviour.
Yes there were. The northern germanic peoples had a sort of tradition of allowing their women to accompany them on their campaigns at times. Now, many armies did this unofficially as camp followers but the germanic women had a somewhat elevated status as they had formations fow women who would hold the final last ditch reserve force. Mainly their job was to take care of logistics and cook and whatever.Also, as oftentimes with tribal peoples the women would keep the morale in check by basically shaming any man who thought of retreating. Imagine running away in front of all the womn in your tribe its unthinkable aura loss. Arabs did this too for example it halted a collapse in their lines at yarmoukHowever they did not fightin the front lines that is woke nonsense.
>>18589158I mean likely not all did but some outliers likely did fight no?
Why do some think they deserve to escape the "cycle of violence"?
>>18589610I guess they're just people who are tired of the violence, maybe? I don't know—I admit I don't quite understand the question xd. But I think it’s impossible to escape the cycle of violence—at least peacefully. For example, politics: I believe politics is a constant battle of ideas, and inevitably only one will survive and bring ultimate peace to the world. But to get there, a great deal of bloodshed is necessary—in other words, the philosophy of “the last revolution in history.”
I'm a Slav but I admire him so much. He's like the incarnation of success and might. He's a textbook example of Nietzsche's overman.
>>18589440I'm a German but I admire Stalin more, he was the true furher that the German people needed, not this tranny loser painter
>>18589449>I'm a German>furher
>but I admire Stalin more
Why was Judeo Bolshevism so strong?
>>18589200The Soviet Union was doing what a lot of empires do: move minority populations around to dilute their regional concentrations so they can't pose a threat and become more reliant on the state. The Romans did it, the Incas did it, and so did the Russians, both before and during the Soviet era. Some populations, like Volga Germans and Tatars, were mostly killed off. Others, like Koreans and Kazakhs, were shuffled around in regions that were already majority-minority.
>>18589357AmeriGODS always win and rape nazis
>>18589357Americans and Russians will always be allies against fascist barbarity
>>18589519even the most retarded amerimutt could see that russians hated them by that point.
>>18589519>
What redpilled him?
>>18588616nobody would take slavic supremacy seriously, that's like hoteps
>>18587213a jew stole his dog Fuchsl during WW1 and it was all downhill from there
>>18587219>>18587566>>18587817After his mother died, the boss of the Academia/Admissions was lobbied by his friend's mother to reconsider his admission. Hitler was send a private letter that he could talk to him in private.Hitler never responded. He could've gotten in but didnt do it.So enough about the "muh artschool".
>>18589340Source: Hitler, Beyond Evil and Tyranny
>>18587213Fake art/gender studies degree. Commies and fascists are cut from the same cloth.
Why do people act like Sparta worship is a modern phenomenon from the far-right when Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers themselves literally glazed Sparta in their writings and viewed Spartan autocracy as more efficient and superior to Athenian democracy? Yes I know 300, a film with no historical accuracy whatsoever, influenced modern Sparta worship, but 300 wasn’t the first time anyone ever glazed Sparta.
>>18589500shalom
>>18589486Greeks and Romans both coexisted with sparta, shared some heritage with Sparta, and also (generally) looked down on Sparta as a backwards failed state whose autistic obsession with repression caused it to kill itself. Romans made Sparta a tourist attraction where they went on tours to mock their backwardness and cruelty. The reason why people fixate on USA spartan larping/300 is because 1. It's obviously propaganda created for killing middle eastern brown people during the war on terror 2. Very few Americans have any Greek ancestry 3. Very few Americans cared about Sparta or knew of it until the 300 movie and 4. Most Americans view Sparta positively, despite 300 being fiction and the ideologically irony of larping as a slave state for freedom
>>18589502You do realize that the Jews’ own scriptures literally claim the Spartans were descended from Abraham?1 Maccabees 12:20-22 >20 “King Arius of the Spartans, to the high priest Onias, greetings. 21 It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and are of the family of Abraham. 22 And now that we have learned this, please write us concerning your welfare;
>>18589486Who acts like that?
>>18589504Why are you talking about "Greeks and Spartans" as if they weren't merely a Greek city state
>>18583976I didn't realize this was an active board. >>18585138>While you are at it, look up prophetess AnnaSomething else to look up to>>18585138>No, I’m glad I don’t have to, because Jesus Christ already fulfilled it in faith. That’s what I mean by faith. Not by law.If we don't, then someone will remarry cause they got divorced and they'll be sinning. You need an accountability layer to protect people from screwing themselves over.>>18585151>this image is a cognitohazard??Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>18588487You married? Congrats anon.
>>18588499>I tried to help you understand. You posted a crusader with glowing red eyes jokingly referring to that you pretend to going to create a court that is going to make everyone marry who they were supposed to marry.You're conflating things. The court is supposed to be designed to help resolve marital disputes. But since you brought that uphttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-heart-balm-racket-convinced-america-women-were-no-good-180968144/https://www.aaml.org/wp-content/uploads/Belleau.pdfAllow me to introduce to you laws that most infact> make everyone marry who they were supposed to marry.We used to have such laws called Heart Balm Tort laws. If you promised to marry someone you could get sued if you don't follow through. If someone homewrecks your marriage, you can sue them even if they weren't intimate with your wife. We need them back. But our government isn't on our side anymore. Thus the church needs to step in to cover to protect their congregation.>>18588494>Bro read the book of Hosea God literally has a prophet tolerate his wife becoming a streetwalking prostitute and him being seen as a cuck by everyone in town it's blackpilling afComment too long. Click here to view the full text.
“Early Christian writers — often referred to as the church fathers — almost universally rejected remarriage after divorce.3 Among Greek-speaking fathers there was total unanimity. The earlier writers (Hermas, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen) all explicitly condemned remarriage after divorce or clearly presupposed this view. The Constantinian settlement that made Christian ity the official religion of the empire (ca. AD 312) might have encouraged Christian writers to identify imperial legal practice, which permitted divorce and remarriage, with Christian values. But there was no sign of that happening. Later Greek theologians such as Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollina-rius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and John Chrysostom all maintained the traditional Christian position that the Gospels do not permit remarriage after divorce. These theologians regarded the exception clause as authorizing or requiring separation, not permitting remarriage afterward.4 That this was the way native Greek speakers understood our Lord’s teaching surely indicates it is the most natural interpretation.”>Excerpt From Remarriage After Divorce in Today's Church: 3 Views (Counterpoints: Church Life) Gordon J. Wenham
> “The evidence of the Latin fathers is equally impressive. Among those who condemned remarriage after divorce were Tertullian, Ambrose, Innocent, Pelagius, Jerome, and Augustine. There was only one dissenting voice in the West, namely, Ambrosiaster, who wrote between 366 and 383. His views on marriage and divorce were strongly influenced by Roman law. For example, he regarded adultery by a husband as much less serious than that by a wife. This inequality put him at odds with both the New Testament and the general attitude of the early church, which always insisted on mutual fidelity. Little wonder that Ambrosiaster was ignored by subsequent fifth-century Latin writers.The witness of the early church thus points unequivocally to a no-remarriage understanding of the gospel divorce texts. Since no modern New Testament scholar can ever hope to approach the Greek fathers’ grasp of their mother tongue and its nuances, dissenters will have to have extremely powerful arguments to show that the understanding of the Greek fathers is not the natural understanding of the texts.”This is getting ridiculous now. I'm getting really pissed at Protestants, how did they let such a critical teaching slide under the table?
>>18589621Also a bit of an error, Constantine legalized Christianity (aka no more persecution of Christians), not made it an official state religion.
How many allies did the 8.8 send to Jesus Christ?
>>18588755germutts are not living beings, abusing them is a moral equivalent of kicking a peeble lying on the road
>>18588755but I'm a right wing neo-nazi Pan-Slavic racial nationalist
>>18588724None.
>>18588724allies go to hell
>>18589620...to piss onto nazis one last time before deprating to heaven
Every argument for communism is pretty much just sociopaths trying to convince people that life would be so much better if we didn't have human rights lol
