[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]

Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

Was there any way to save the railroads after the interstate highway act or was it just a slow decline?
4 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Giving them the money back the government effectively stole from them in WW2.
some of these logos are quite good
I assume OP is talking more about the northeastern railroads which all went Bankrupt primarily because the government kept treating railroads like it was the fucking 1800
>derails a thread immediately
Based train hating autistic
Not derailed as hard as trains do lmao

File: Napoleon.jpg (51 KB, 620x413)
51 KB
Napoleon is a surprisingly uncontroversial figure, given how much blood he spilled and how many societies he impacted.
Was there any country, during or after the wars, where he was hated the same way Hitler is today?
20 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
For the 200 years anniversary of his death, the french left, which is currently antiauthoritarian, threw a fit at memorial ceremonies.
And a decade ago, some leftist french historian wrote a book comparing him to Hitler.
All of these because "muh slavery", " muh Haïti".
File: frederick-ii.jpg (49 KB, 492x600)
49 KB
>makes you a republic civil law or installs a trusted ally to administer you indirectly
What a nice way to say "installs a puppet government"

>imposed a uniform system of law everywhere he went.
What a nice way to say "completely disregarded the local political and legal traditions"

>almost all of the so called "napoleonic wars" were declared by various make-shift alliances of monarchies AGAINST napoleon for the express purpose of taking away peoples rights and stopping the plebs in their own countries from idolizing france and wanting rights of their own
You are conveniently ignoring that there were popular uprisings AGAINST Napoleon in Italy, Germany and Russia

>pretty much all of the "bloodshed" that people try to pin on him is actually on the hands of European aristocracy as usual
Yeah, I am sure the invasions of Russia and Spain were purely defensive wars that just happened to take place in foreign soil because of some dirty counter-revolutionary reason
Quoting >>15670766 here >>15671844
Back then there was no legal definition of war crimes, this explains why military figures who lived before the mid-XIX century are treated more leniently no matter how cruel they can be reasonably expected to have been (think Genghis Khan).

For example, Napoleon's armies were known for "living off the land". Nowadays, we would call this stealing and pillaging, and of course it targeted poor rural people and nobody else. The British had no such lax rules. The troops were expected to be fed and equipped on the basis of regularly purchased supplies
>What a nice way to say "completely disregarded the local political and legal traditions"
Oh no, the tradition of being ruled by gluttonous inbred retards.
>inb4 some retarded cope about modern heads of state being unaccountable for their actions as if you'd have any more luck deposing the king of hw fucked you over

Did this actually happen?
18 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
Noah didn't exist. The story is based on a story from 2900 BC.
File: 1643718457530.jpg (97 KB, 500x375)
97 KB
Never happened.
They deserved it.

...wait a second....
>claims the guy was 900 years old
Not off to a good start here.
So basically, humans being saved with a boat from a big flood is what's mostly in common? Well hot didly doo who would've thunk

Steppe elites confirmed?
57 replies and 4 images omitted. Click here to view.
Yep. We won. Medapes lost.
Greeks were J2, slavoid animal
Madullah you lose
you are gypsy
blonde hair so
over its
this ahuward never posted on 4chan you mentally ill troon, stop throwing names around
true, semitic jews literally rule over white men
ancient greeks were less steppe admixed and had lower percentages of steppe haplogroups than modern italians and greeks
they were not white

File: bible.jpg (190 KB, 1280x1280)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
You may point to the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and tell me that is God's preserved word, but it's on its 28th revision, and soon there will be a 29th and 30th with thousands of changes made. Not so "preserved" after all, is it?

You may point to the King James Version and the Textus Receptus, but the same textual criticism revisions applies to that. Erausmus made 30 different editions, which include fake verses such as the Johannine Comma and the Pericope Adulterae. Not so "preserved" after all, is it?

The original Greek manuscripts no longer exist. If I ask for the "preserved word of God", Christians cannot give it to me.
82 replies and 14 images omitted. Click here to view.
>If you want to know what the original text most likely looked like
The actual original text is the received, as mentioned before.

>most likely looked like
That is all naturalists will ever have, because they presuppose that God failed to preserve His word as their a priori assumption, then work their way backwards from there. They will find what they are looking for, which is something that's changeable and sufficiently doubtworthy to their liking, because that's what they want. They will reject God's actual word due to their presuppositions and dislike for the things of God. They don't want to believe that the Lord preserved His word, but for some reason they still want to pretend to be Christian, to pretend to be a believer in God, for some unknown reason. And that is where all of the sodomite rainbow flag types come from. They aren't real Christians, as if that weren't obvious enough. And that is also the source of the people who hate Christ, they have presuppositions against God, but want to pretend to be earnestly looking for God's word (even though they hate God), simply in order to mislead and gaslight others. I'm glad to provide information for other people browsing this thread regardless. I will let them come to their own conclusions.
>Every person should be careful about the context of every passage of Scripture
Yeah guys be very careful to strap on your symbolism goggles before reading the very words of Jesus Christ or you might read yourself into the one true Church founded by him 2000 years ago.
How hard do you have to contort your brain to turn "the words that I speak" of John 6:63 into anything but what Jesus has been saying in John 6 prior to that verse?
>How hard do you have to contort your brain to turn "the words that I speak" of John 6:63 into anything but what Jesus has been saying in John 6 prior to that verse?
What makes you think that, anon?
File: kjv_10.jpg (541 KB, 1600x1200)
541 KB
541 KB JPG
Here are some good Bible verses on this:

"Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
(Psalm 119:160)

"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
(Proverbs 30:5-6)

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
(Isaiah 40:8)

"Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?"

Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
You're not.

File: bibe.jpg (180 KB, 843x1464)
180 KB
180 KB JPG
10 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Coloring things helps people memorize things better :)
its all a bunch of made up bullshit that set scientific progress back by about 2000 years.
>you're an extremist

>The people screaming on the street corner, the guy samefagging his own thread 900times per day until he gets banned from the christian forum for shilling his homebrew doctrine, the guy running a scam getting people to give them their house, those are all revelation based people.
Those are hardly "major" issues in my opinion.

>I've never seen revelations used in a beneficial or positive way. It is either neutral or absued.
Reminding people that Jesus is coming again is a good thing, many Christians forget that. The messeges to the 7 churches are useful for teaching.
Nah, the whore of Babylon is quite obviously the Roman Catholic Church. The only difference is that some people (prots, sedevacantists) will say it's the whore right now while Catholics think it will morph into it in the future (but not yet).
There are some books missing

File: 15fc023658c37b9a7.jpg (145 KB, 947x1340)
145 KB
145 KB JPG
What if the Bronze Age crisis was a zombiapocalypse?

File: 591.png (70 KB, 306x306)
70 KB
Why do christcucks throw around "Church of Science" like its an insult?
>ooooooh, you prioritize logic, reasoning and evidence based deducing over blind faith, emotions and the placebo effect
>bet you feel so dumb now, atheist!
Because the apologetic structure of Christianity was from the very beginning built around engaging with members of other religions. When there is no other religion to grapple with, the Christian brain glitches and inserts one anyway.

In case any of you partake in the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Thought I'd share this.
I thought almost all Christians didn't like tattoos, including Catholics?
From my experience, it's mostly just old Catholics who don't like tattoos, and that's because they're boomers rather than because they're Catholic.
based jesuit tat
go experience more,

and maybe read something

File: not amused.jpg (7 KB, 208x242)
7 KB
why are muslims apologists generally very slimy and shady? the top muslims apologists have on occasions outright lied about their faith, to try and win an argument/debate. I feel like they're the only apologists you have to verify everything they claim for yourself just because they are so shady whereas Christian Jewish, Hindu apologists I never have to do this, everything I've wanted to verify has been true
3 replies omitted. Click here to view.
idk, cant imagine a muslim apologist, wth does he do
they're not very good if im being completely honest, they're just not very smart people when it comes to philosophy or theology. Watching Jews and Christians debate is fun thoughever just because how strong their defenses of their faiths are
>Jewish, Hindu apologists
no such thing. Apologetics only exists in Islam and Christianity - the Coke and Pepsi of religions.
Because while Christians literally have the concept of being thrown to the lions for your faith ingrained in childhood, Islam has taquiya. I don't even think the Talmud goes that far, despite it's duplicitous nature.
Natufian dna. Corded Nordids are honest to a tee and that's why christcuckery is bad for their mental health.

File: islamflag.png (3 KB, 275x183)
3 KB
Who came up with this?
The byzantines used it, later on the ottomans used it, then the west used it for islam in general, but its not islamic at all
Green is the color of islam because of the prophet Muhammad
the Star and Cresent is because of Turkey. this is why places that have it were either former Ottoman lands and or looked up to Turkey when forming their country
>because of the prophet Muhammad
Yeah but WHY. Is it his favorite color? Tye color of his shit?

File: frenchmen.png (749 KB, 1280x1799)
749 KB
749 KB PNG
The French Revolution and its consequences for fashion history have been a disaster for the human race.
2 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
>historylet is confused
How so, Mongrel?
>post hidden
File: D6VMoD3WkAYQwtJ.jpg (286 KB, 801x1200)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
We could be dressing like Babylon 5 Centauri right now. Instead we have gay ass jeans and hoodies. Thanks sans culottes.
If there hadn't been a revolution, France would have become a constitutional monarchy, which are dens of globohomo degeneracy.

Was Wall Street an ally of Communism?
yes just look at your photo

File: images.jpg (91 KB, 495x619)
91 KB
What do Christians think when they see things like this in nature?
18 replies and 5 images omitted. Click here to view.
there are hundreds of types of pagans, so every answer would be different
File: wank.gif (924 KB, 322x280)
924 KB
924 KB GIF
they think dirty thoughts, fap for 30 seconds and then spend an hour crying and begging for forgiveness' from god
Funny lol
Make it a lifetime
I wouldn't imagine anyone let alone a Christian getting aroused enough by a tree to do all that desu

File: 1582499004588.jpg (81 KB, 1088x654)
81 KB
Catholicism: Aristotelian
Orthodoxy: Platonic
Protestantism: ???
27 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
The reason it was a question at the time of the reformation is that the church had not ruled in any decisive sense on the canon. It was an open question. The protestants appealed to Jewish tradition and the early church, which is why the protestant canon is today more similar to that of the early church.
Im not worried about the canon. I already said I accept the councils decision on the canon. I'm saying, if we accept the authority of the fathers and councils opinions in forming the canon (which manifestly did occur), then at what point did they lose their way and stop being relevant.

Was it 300? 400? 500?

>The canon of the Catholic Church was affirmed by the Council of Rome (AD 382), the Synod of Hippo (AD 393), the Council of Carthage (AD 397), the Council of Carthage (AD 419), the Council of Florence (AD 1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (AD 1545–1563).
Did you click the link
I did. Luther was a catholic monk working out of the catholic canon though. So what the councils said is what actually ended up in protestant hands.
He didn't go back and read all the commentators individually and come to an objective decision. The key factor was what was officially approved.
The real better way of dividing it would be
>Western Christianity (Roman Catholic and Protestant) = Aristotelian
>Eastern Christianity (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox) = Platonist

[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.