Was there anything quite like the Crusades/Jihads anywhere else in the world? Where several nations of the same religion got together and declared war on other nations of another religion for centuries?
>>467008
Delian Leagues (aka Athenian Empire) wars against Persia, they even had their HQ and treasure in a temple, and they used the same rationalization - "liberation of our clay from eastern oppressors". They ended up just like Crusaders - by becoming greedy and turning on their brothers in Sparta and Corinth.
> Where several nations of the same religion got together and declared war on other nations of another religion for centuries?
This applies to Crusaders only, tbqh senpai.
The cold war with geopolitical alliances, however it was only 50 years
>>467049
>Delian League vs Persian Empire
Doesn't work well as an example given that Sparta was constantly working with Persia and it'd be the equivalent to the entirety of Southern Europe fighting Northern Europe.
How old were you when you realised that monogamy, fidelity, tradition, etc. are spooks, and that any desire for them comes to personal desire and/or insecurity?
>>466882
>any desire for them is just personal desire
>desire is desire
Gettin real deep here
>>466882
>it's a spook
>because it's personal desire
Isn't personal one of the least spooky things there is?
>>466882
Wait.
What?
>A scold's bridle, sometimes called a brank's bridle or simply branks, was an instrument of punishment used primarily on women, as a form of torture and public humiliation.[1] The device was an iron muzzle in an iron framework that enclosed the head. A bridle-bit (or curb-plate), about 2 inches long and 1 inch broad, projected into the mouth and pressed down on top of the tongue.[2]
>The curb-plate was frequently studded with spikes, so that if the offender moved her tongue, it inflicted pain and made speaking impossible.[3] Wives who were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear the branks, locked onto their head.
What are other public humiliations and Punishments from history?
Hnng
>>466870
I wonder what these women did to get punished like this?
>>467018
Wives who were seen as witches, shrews and scolds, were forced to wear the branks, locked onto their head.
alright faggots
The bottom diagram is to explain what the tables mean. The top table is the top “floor” and the second is the bottom “floor”.
what is being?
If to be is to be perceived, then #5 is nothingness by definition, and #7 is impossible. But if it's impossible, then "nothing" belongs in box 7, but nothingness by impossibility seems to be different than nothingness by quality, perhaps that's just me.
Additionally, if to be is to be perceived then, it seems if thoughts are to exist (and i hope none of you are edgy enough to suggest otherwise), then conceivability is a category of perception.
I'm inclined to believe that conceivability is not a category of perception, and that being is positive perceivability andor positive conceivability.
pls respond
>>467925
what is the correct definition of being?
Reminder that "Native" Americans are not native to the America's at all and killed off two entire continents of the original inhabitants
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14895_Skoglund_2015.pdf
>head geneticist at Harvard confirms that there is archaic Australoid dna in amazonian natives not found in other 'Native" Americans
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2015/01/first-americans/hodges-text
>By all appearances, the earliest Americans were a rough bunch. If you look at the skeletal remains of Paleo-Americans, more than half the men have injuries caused by violence, and four out of ten have skull fractures. The wounds don’t appear to have been the result of hunting mishaps, and they don’t bear telltale signs of warfare, like blows suffered while fleeing an attacker. Instead it appears that these men fought among themselves—often and violently.
>The women don’t have these kinds of injuries, but they’re much smaller than the men, with signs of malnourishment and domestic abuse.
>these are all indications that the earliest Americans were what he calls “Northern Hemisphere wild-type” populations: bold and aggressive, with hypermasculine males and diminutive, subordinate females. And this, he thinks, is why the earliest Americans’ facial features look so different from those of later Native Americans. These were risk-taking pioneers, and the toughest men were taking the spoils and winning fights over women. As a result, their robust traits and features were being selected over the softer and more domestic ones evident in later, more settled populations.
>Naia has the facial features typical of the earliest Americans as well as the genetic signatures common to modern Native Americans. This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
>tldr
Early "native" Americans had hyper masculine features and a violent culture, this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people until only a small group remained in the amazon which is proven by genetic analysis
>>466701
> [they] had hyper masculine features and a violent culture, this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people until only a small group remained
This is the history of the humanity in a nutshell.
>>466698
Are you reading your own article?
>The wounds don’t appear to have been the result of hunting mishaps, and they don’t bear telltale signs of warfare, like blows suffered while fleeing an attacker. Instead it appears that these men fought among themselves—often and violently.
If there was any sustained genocide it wasn't in the form of warfare.
>And this, he thinks, is why the earliest Americans’ facial features look so different from those of later Native Americans.
>This signals that the two groups don’t look different because the earliest populations were replaced by later groups migrating from Asia, Instead they look different because the first Americans changed after they got here.
These "hyper masculine" and "violent" natives interbred with and were replaced by, as noted by the article, immigrants with "softer and more domestic" features.
>this lend credence to the theory they genocided the earlier people
No, there is literally no evidence of that based on your articles. The first only establishes a genetic difference and the second clearly argues that any violence came not from systematic warfare but from internecine violence and infighting.
Is it possible, in principle, to know the mind (for want of a better word) of God? By which I mean: Is it, strictly speaking, technically possible to 'agree' with God about a given proposition?
To unpack the question: Adam likes Star Wars because he enjoys simple stories of good versus evil and thinks spaceships and lightsabres are cool. Bob likes Star Wars because he really enjoys swordplay and is a big fan of Alec Guinness. Carl likes Star Wars because he fetishises m=>f transsexuals and therefore finds Carrie Fisher attactive.
All three agree *that Star Wars is good*, but for vastly differing reasons. I claim that, technically speaking, they do not in fact 'agree' about Star Wars in any robust sense. But I do not claim that it is impossible, in principle, for them to agree about Star Wars.
Whereas I suspect that the perspective of an entity rightly called 'godlike' would in fact be impossible to agree with in a robust sense.
Thoughts?
You'd have to define God.
>>466658
in the three examples you listed, there are differing levels of consciousness, the highest being awareness of archtype and art of storytelling and the lowest the sole awareness of animal sexuality. these are different ways of percieving the world.
when you elevate your consciousness beyond simple reductionism, basal animality, essentially materialism
moving into the realm of implicit meaning in natural order, non-domestic (selfless) thought, seeing phenom as symbolic for higher principles and concepts, etc.
you begin to think like God. That's all it is. You have to look at things from the perspective of an entity that is basically the grandest architect; an artist, philosopher, and scientist all in one. the point of origin, in which there can be no division. AΩ
that is the crux of the matter. God is absolute. He is Prime and absolute Union. All paradox and all impossibilities mean nothing in the face of God's absoluteness.
so as it was said in the corpus, make the haunt of every creature your home, all sea and air and land, and every living thing a lart of you. if you say "i cannot mount the heavens, i am afraid of earth and sea and night, i am small and human alone... what business have you in contemplating GOD?"
>>466772
>moving into the realm of implicit meaning in natural order, non-domestic (selfless) thought, seeing phenom as symbolic for higher principles and concepts, etc.
>you begin to think like God. That's all it is. You have to look at things from the perspective of an entity that is basically the grandest architect; an artist, philosopher, and scientist all in one.
That's the thing, though - I'm skeptical that it is in fact possible to 'think like God'.
Imagine, as an example, if I attempt to 'think like Bill Gates'. I can project myself into an imagined space where I am very rich, where I founded Microsoft, where I married a woman named Melinda, where I co-founded a charitable foundation concerned with philanthropy and so on. I then begin to engage with issues from an imagined perspective of being extremely wealthy, somewhat famous etc.
I do not believe that the above actually represents "thinking like Bill Gates". I think it is much more aptly termed "Pretending to think like Bill Gates". Bill Gates is an actual entity whose full nature is not known to me. All that I can do is extrapolate from the impressions of him that I possess, which are in fact unique to me, and which ultimately reflect on me, rather than on Bill Gates.
So in effect, I begin to think like me pretending to be Bill Gates. And the obstacle I've described is, presumably, so much the greater when it comes to God.
What would have changed had Martel lost at Tours?
Nothing
>>466435
see balkans
>>466435
Pippinids hardly would have in to dominating the whole Francia.
can you show me a more overrated warrior?
pro tip: you can't
Vikings.
>>466294
Nazis.
>>466324
seem pretty underrated on the internet desu
Socialist lives don't matter.
Some people just couldn't deal with it. Europe, South America, Asia. They all had those heroes.
The man who saved Japan on live television. Absolute madman.
>>466168
Thats why your mom says you to not run while carrying pointy things.
So who really built the box and why? Islamist say Abraham built it but it seems there is no evidence to prove that claim.
>>466131
Polytheists.
Vikings probably paid for it because they're cucks
Pagan Arabians, as a place to stop their constant warring
Christians>pagans
prove me wrong
>>466104
quality is dependent on a value, your value isn't stated, your statement doesn't mean anything, you're a faggot.
>>466104
Asian Pagans > Europagans.
Just because Europe sold itself out doesnt mean paganism has to be labelled under one Geographic location.
But the Christians and Pagans ended up mixing in the form of the Church.
I want to study religions as much as I possibly can.
Is pic related a good way to start? How many faiths is it missing?
>>466057
Everything before 500 BC is a total bullshit. Everything after - just a regular bullshit.
>>466057
This chart p much totally misses the point of religious studies and is filled w lots of weird Western-centric misperceptions or oversimplifications
>How many faiths is it missing?
As you go back further and further more and more
Is there any book that covers the history of Russia? From the czars to the cold war, all those countries affected by the revolution and communism, specially Romania and Czech Republic. Also episodes like Holodomor and Nikolai Yezhov.
I'd appreciate any recommendations, thanks.
You'll have better luck finding books in Russians that deny the Holodomor.
>>465433
Also about that, what is the general opinion of this board about the holodomor? Is it a touchy subject like the holocaust? I'm fairly new here, so sorry for the ignorance.
>>465454
I never saw threads about the Holodomor. It's obviously less marketed in world, so people feel less inclined to talk about it or deny it.
I met Russians who would often scoff at it and call it Ukrainian lies.
Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods."
>>465186
Coincidence, I think I heard this is quoted in the movie I just watched, Oblivion.
>>465193
Exactly. It was used there.
Whoever is a Serb and of Serb birth,
And of Serb blood and heritage,
And comes not to fight at Kosovo,
May he never have progeny born from love,
Neither son nor daughter!
May nothing grow that his hand sows,
Neither young wine nor white wheat!
And may he be dying in filth as long as his children are alive!
>not ancient, but medieval 1389
Is Zoroaster the coolest looking prophet?
He looks like a parallel universe Jesus.
>>465098
Nah, its prolly one of the Hebrew Judges or Muhammad.
Especially Good Ol' Mo. Cunt may have went into battle looking like the dude far left..
>>465098
He's the DBZ version
>>465098
That isn't a photo.
![Samurai[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3DRLiZ4.jpg "Samurai[1]")
