What do you know about colonialism? What were it's benefits and harms, both for Africa and for Europe?
That's an incredibly broad question
If you want to learn more about colonialism yourself you should read Wesseling, H.L. and Arnold J. Pomerans. Divide and rule: The partition of Africa, 1880–1914 (Praeger, 1996.). It's available for free online I believe.
>benefits:
Europe
>harms:
africa
>>1389416
Oh yes, blacks are 500x worse by not dying by the hundreds of thousands by curable diseases, starvation and old age by 40.
If God existed FOREVER before he created humans, what was he doing, and why did he decide to create them? And did he create angels and other beings before humans?
He done everything, he is all-powerful after all. No way that there exist something that he wasn't dome.
>>1388938
Ah yes, we us humans anthropomorphizing the universe. We are a fascinating species; so needy.
>>1388938
>what was he doing
Not existing
Shall we have a /his/toric alphabet?
A is for Africa, cucked and left for dead,
B is for Britain, pounded to pieces.
No.
C is for Cuckold porn, /pol/'s favorite pasttime
Language is sound that refers to internal states/relations. How do we feel that a word is "right" for something? What's going on there?
By association only.
A word is nothing but a mental image or meaning. Make up a word, lets say Bikot and use it to replace Good. Soon Bikot will invoke the concept of Goodness in your head.
>>1388524
OK. You're right. but how are the initial words determined?
>>1388541
Feelings and experience create the value of words.
As each person's experience and feelings differ there will come a difference between word choices. However in society, people use standard dictionary to give rise to standard meaning based on generalized definition.
Can freedom be mandatory?
Democracy is non-negotiable.
>>1388493
Of course not.
>>1388499
democracy isn't the same as freedom
What was the historical Jesus like, behind the obviously altered scriptures?
Was he a real revolutionary? I heard he hung out with whores.
>>1388424
The Scriptures are teachings more than historical landmarking, though the placement of Christ is throughout these readings as well.
I don't know, OP, how would anyone know what he is like if we reject all the earliest accounts of him as worthless?
He was an apocalyptic preacher, originally a disciple of John the Baptist, another apocalyptic preacher. He believed that God would soon intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on earth.
So... How small kingdom of Denmark was being able to take entire Island size of an Africa just for itself?
by projecting their colossal 3d insecurity onto a 2d map in a particularly distorted way
/thread
>>1388340
Nobody else wants it
It's just a frozen rock with a bunch of (mostly) Greenlandic inuits, who spend their days getting drunk and playing chess.
Nobody else wants it.
Do Jews consider Christ to be goyim?
He was literally a Jew. Only later with Paul did Christianity begin to introduce gentiles.
>>1388299
גוי
"Nation", but usually more with respect to the people/ethnicity than an actual modern state. If I said
הגוי ספרד רוצה..........
I'm more properly referring to a want by the Spanish people than the Spanish government.
Pluralizing it into "Goyim", would make it multiple nations.
So no, we do not consider Jesus to be multiple nations.
Honestly, most religious Jews don't really concern themselves much with Jesus at all. Not rally relevant to us, you know? Of the ones that do, the usual line is something of the apocalyptic Jewish preacher, very possibly heretical, although you do get a few fringe notions that he was preaching more or less mainline Judaism and the message got changed later. He's not considered to be some new and radical non-Jewish thing by most accounts.
>>1388315
What kind of Jew?
Why did polytheism fail in the West? Why did Rome convert to Christianity? At what point would the rise of monotheism be possible to stop?
>>1388224
Why did polytheism fail in the West? Why did Rome convert to Christianity?
Oppression and murder.
>>At what point would the rise of monotheism be possible to stop?
Either have Constantine lose the battle of the milvian bridge or have Julian the Apostate be more successful.
I have the one theory.
>>1388224
Trick question. Christianity is only quasi monotheistic. The Godhead consists of three entities.
>Why did Rome convert to Christianity?
Constantine and a desire to control the masses and not persecute them.
>At what point would the rise of monotheism be possible to stop?
We're working on it right now
Prove you're a true /his/torian anon.
Tell us everything you know about the history of the island of Madagascar.
Apparently, was ruled by female Caligula at one point.
The country is largely impervious to foreign diseases.
>>1388128
Yes, but the port is frequently closed, this is a major hassle for trade.
Some Fathers on Sola Scriptura:
"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if ‘all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and ‘faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
Some Fathers on Sola Gratia
But when the Lord Jesus came, He forgave all men that sin which none could escape, and blotted out the handwriting against us by the shedding of His own Blood. This then is the Apostle's meaning; sin abounded by the Law, but grace abounded by Jesus; for after that the whole world became guilty, He took away the sin of the whole world, as John bore witness, saying: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. Wherefore let no man glory in works, for by his works no man shall be justified, for he that is just hath a free gift, for he is justified by the Bath. It is faith then which delivers by the blood of Christ, for Blessed is the man to whom sin is remitted, and, pardon granted. Ambrose (Letter 73, to Irenaeus, a layman)
"After speaking of the wages of sin, in the case of blessings, he has not kept to the same order: for he does not say, the wages of your good deeds, but the gift of God: to show, that it was not of themselves that they were freed, nor was it a due they received, neither yet a return, nor a recompense of labors, but by grace all these things came about. And so there was superiority for this cause also, in that He did not free them only, or change their condition for the better, but that He did it without any labor or trouble upon their part: and that He not only freed them, but also gave them more than before, and that through His Son." - St. John Chrysostom (Epistle to the Romans, Homily 12, Rom 6:23)
you already got BTFO when you posted this on 8ch/christian/, are you sure you are ready for round 2?
>tfw you realize there is no good or bad, just that which is dialectically necessary and that which can be ignored
Have I just finished philosophy?
It isn't a truth if you can't live it.
It doesn't really matter what you SAY is good or bad, it's how you feel after you've performed an action. If you suffer negative emotion after performing an action, it's safe to say that the action you preformed is bad.
>>1387595
Emotions are spooks
>>1387600
That may be the case, but if you can't live with your emotional spooks, you've done something bad.
why japan is so much more efficient to maintain a civilization in comparison to russia
japan has roughly the same population size as russia but as you know it is fucking tiny and
has absolutely no resources relative to Ivan
> be Russia
> Mongols come and destroy everything
> be Japan
> Mongols destroyed by a random storm
Being located on the fucking Island is easy mode, compared to being bordered by Turkey, Germans, Austrians and god knows who else. Same reason why for England it was so easy to maintain status of the great power.
Russia has been relevant for hundreds of years and was a superpower for almost 50 years. Russia has had to fight for itself and maintain its own security.
Japan has only been relevant since the Meiji Restoration and had an empire for 50 years that was utterly crushed by America. Then, they leeched off of American security and destructive trade policies where American citizens suffered so Japan could become prosperous. So fuck off with your bullshit, Hiroshi.
> mfw Japanese dying even faster than Russians
Why do the north sides of American cities tend to encompass the most wealthy and developed areas?
Not for NYC.
>>1387166
Are we a meme?
>>1387166
northeners are genetically superior to southerners, that's a fact I read in the scientific journal "Mein Kampf".
Also, fuck the international jewish bolshevism.
It's sound realistic, that all citizens cannot rule their country at the same time. Otherwise, that will be mean, that considering of every law will be like referendum every time, when somebody will decide, that hats shouldn't be above 43.27 cm, and every time citizen will have to go and vote. But progress does not stand still, and humanity gets its advantages, that were unimaginable before, like internets, which give reason to reconsider this situation. Is it possible already to, at least, imagine, that people can vote not for elites, who represent their interests, but for their interests directly, using the system, they can completely trust somehow, where everyone can express an opinion, which is similar to an endless referendum, in which only the current state of voting matters?
>>1386977
So, democracy? You're asking if it would be possible to have a democratic system using today's technology. It could be. You would have to go back 2000 years and learn what actual democracy is like, not this representative government bullshit we have today. You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws, then you make people vote for those laws. You could use some kind of electronic ID in order to vote from your computer or even your mobile phone. Though I guess most of the people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while, unless you somehow manage the voting process.
You could have voting periods in which the people would be able to vote, in this way, maybe you could catch their attention and make more people vote than compared to always throwing laws at random and expecting them to check the voting system every day.
However, you would have a problem, and that is that people are just fucking stupid. Even if you tell them that raising taxes is beneficial because the state has run out of money, they would probably vote against a raise of taxes and stuff like that.
All in all, the good old democracy is hard to implement into the current world because today's countries are too damn complex. So, to answer your question, no, people directly voting for their interests is unfeasible and would result in anarchy.
"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy"
"democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property"
>>1388243
>You pick a representative at random and make it work creating laws
I suspect, that everyone could creating laws. Laws just should be shown to a small group of people at the beginning of its existing and then - depending on the situation.
>people would grow tired of it and would stop voting after a while
All people shouldn't vote at every law, that gets in their sight. Only interested people, who understand this particular law, maybe specialists. Most of regular people should just to track upcoming changes to prevent some sudden trash to become a reality.
>people are just fucking stupid
Unfortunately, still could be worse without this system, I think. But, of course, I cannot assert this without looking at the implemented system work.
>>1386977 (OP)
I would say this sort of thing sometimes. Be it written differently.
An interesting crux of this sort of thing is that the real worth is not that all must vote all the time. But a more powerful allocation of power and money and possessions.
Of course also a good allocation of decision making. Not in some burdensome way.
Because something is interesting and favourable does not mean there HAS to be a burdensome catch. Or does anyone have any view on why this would have to be? So: ''''There will always be this unacceptable burdensome thing''''. ''''Even though everything was done in a way to avoid just that''''.
