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

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]

[Catalog] [Archive]

File: Charles the handsome.jpg (250 KB, 1500x2000)
250 KB
250 KB JPG
Is it true that?
He is simply jaw-dropping.
i'm left speechless

File: 1496428711948.jpg (140 KB, 750x737)
140 KB
140 KB JPG
Why do Christians believe evil is a privation? Surely if evil only exists within Man and not God then God is not 'omni' as something is outside of his circumference.
13 replies omitted. Click here to view.
They don't believe it in any serious way. It's just sophistry offered to explain away the problem of evil
imagine not following based Thoth
what does it feel like bros
sanded coins in milk
You cannot confine good and evil to be totally dependent on subjective experience. What seems good to humans is good and what seems evil is evil. But this totally disregards God’s conception of good, which is more objective. A world in which humans only perceive good is therefore not necessarily objectively good.

God’s objective omnibenevolence/goodness/justice is not affected by our subjective views. God is good because God is Truth and is a glorious Creator. In the same way that I eat animals for my purpose, making it good for me, God does whatever he needs to do for his objective standard of good. Unfortunately this allows suffering to exist for us, but God is merciful, so he allows a way to salvation, which we can either accept or reject.

God is objectively good, but also subjectively benevolent to humans. But God can also be subjectively malevolent. This has to be the case, since some people hate God, and some people go to hell.
Proverbs 8:17
>I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.
James 4:8
>Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
Deuteronomy 7:9
>9 Know therefore that the Lord your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commandments.

The problem of evil is only a problem when you’re an atheist.

File: Second_Civil_War.jpg (114 KB, 1025x576)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
Was the Civil War fought over slavery?

I used to think so since it's the prevailing myth (I don't say myth to denigrate that hypothesis, merely to point out that all wars require a myth to ease the victor's conscience), but I'm having difficulty reconciling that view with the fact that Lincoln didn't think blacks & whites could live together harmoniously and wanted them shipped off to Liberia. Hardly the "Great Emancipator". This leads me to a more moderate hypothesis that slavery was rather a convenient pretext to put in line the unruly southern states in a regional north vs south conflict that had been fermenting since the Continental Congress. The north knew it could win since it had a much greater population, infrastructure and manpower pool, and so used this opportunity to quell the south's rebellious bellicosity before the power advantage shifted due to an alliance with a European power or some such scenario.

For the record of this discussion, I just want to say that I do think slavery is an evil, and I don't think we should've brought those smelly niggers to this hemisphere.
142 replies and 16 images omitted. Click here to view.
File: EGoI1hrXUAEe5_M.jpg (57 KB, 677x695)
57 KB
>The economic laws Lincoln and the Republicans implemented as soon as they could are evidence enough.
What are you trying to say? Yes, the Republicans passed the Morill Tariff in 1861 in order to protect the nation's industry. No, that doesn't mean the Republicans opposed slavery primarily for economic reasons. There were many ideas that contributed to abolitionism and simply reducing it to "rich guys wanted industry" is moronic.
>Bruh, it really isn't that hard to jack off to Rin Tohsaka's lovely thighs and also find the time to learn about history lmao
You clearly haven't learned enough to seriously speak about this topic as if it's fact.
>No, that doesn't mean the Republicans opposed slavery primarily for economic reasons.
Please ignore the fact the fact that the Whig Party's (the predecessors to the Republican Party and themselves the successors to the Federalists) political platform focused almost entirely on a Hamiltonian political agenda which was subsequently adopted by the Republicans themselves. And also the fact that the Republicans were funded almost entirely by commercial and industrial interests, which, as we know, have no impact on political leanings.

>You clearly haven't learned enough to seriously speak about this topic as if it's fact.
Yes, the Republicans had a protectionist economic policy. Once again, this does not mean abolitionism was entirely motivated by economic reasons, nor does it mean the Republicans were anti-slavery just because their backers told them to.

File: Medieval Romania.jpg (426 KB, 796x1024)
426 KB
426 KB JPG
How did ROMEanians manage to maintain a Latin language despite the Turkik and Slavic invasions of the Balkans in the Middle Ages? What do we know about the genesis of the Rom(e)anian peoples? Were they late Romans such as Siagrus but who managed to resist the Barbarians?
59 replies and 9 images omitted. Click here to view.
lol my fellow, first worlder, you and i both know that our people can't even grow crops, settle their differences, or fix their own houses. good luck there. most of our lot will turn into food for cannibals in that kind of event.
But it’s happening right now?
>my country
Literally best country in the world, oldest nation in existence
>his country
Fucking gypsy shithole, needs to be nuked
Yeah it is threads like these.

Do any other religions have a "Messiah" prophecy or is it just Judaism?
9 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Zoroastrianism is older than Christianity by like a thousand years.
Cyrus is literally called out as a messiah. The term means something completely different in Judaism than christianity. In Judaism technically any king from the line of solomon is one and anybody who restores israel to the jews and rebuilds the temple (see Cyrus)
>the Saoshyant, "one who brings benefit". Considered to be a very literal, military leader that brings together the spirit of the people in a great conquest.
Great Khan!

Yeah this is true, that is what messiah means in their own language. I.e. one guy rallies them all to go kill everybody else. It's stone age and retarded and never happens. It's a thing people cling to when they're too stupid to know how to do anything to feed themselves; like barbarians not knowing how to work the land so having to raid other people, like most 'Great' Wars.

It also has a twisted effect on peoples minds, like without education and knowledge, if you happen to know how do something or help people out you're not talented or clever to those people, you're The Messiah. And if they don't like you: if you don't help them, then you're The Anti-Christ.

It's too ghoulish. And pahetic. If they like you they're on their knees in convulsions about how wonderful you are, like slavish faggots, and if they don't like you they're on their knees in convulsions about how evil you are, like deranged women.

In either instance are they doing anything for themselves but being led like sheep.
The concept of Messiah in Judaism and Christianity, as an eschatological savior was pretty much lifted wholesale from Zoroastrianism.
Maitreya i guess?

File: King Charles I of England.jpg (1.56 MB, 2317x4000)
1.56 MB
1.56 MB JPG
Did he deserve it?
2 replies omitted. Click here to view.
He got what he fucking deserved
And he got what he deserved
Yes, he brought it on himself. The English system of Government had long moved beyond absolute monarchy but he was too autistic to take any notice.
He wasn't even close to an absolute monarch retard, and England had never been an absolute monarchy

File: soy.jpg (109 KB, 785x731)
109 KB
109 KB JPG
5 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
The Saxons were given two options, convert or die.
So all the massacres the Nazis commited in the name of punishing partisans was ok then?
But the thing is that this approach to rebellions is not very effective. While Charlemagne, unlike the Nazis, did eventually prove successful with it, he would have had a much easier time if the reprisals weren't so harsh. Instead he had to put down rebellion after rebellion.
Those are rookie numbers kid. Come back you have a real casualty count

>OMG Churchhill what a charismatic man and great orator
I don't see it. Is it just Anglos being Anglos ie "The mighty Zulu empire"
8 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
Answer my question. Where's the charisma?
>posting a cuck
Peak Britishness.

File: choosefag delusions.png (12 KB, 1506x163)
12 KB
Do you find this reasoning sound?
15 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Well what’s the basis for the “colored supremacy movement”, that doesn’t seem accurate to me.
its cool to hate white people.
white people signal to other white people that theyre hip by hating themselves and fawning over twerking apes.
having pure british ancestry in america is popularly regarded as "boring" by all demographic groups except hypernazis.
mixed babies are a commodity because everyone wants to look like beyonce.
famous comedians regularly profess the plainness and ugliness of white people.

"spicy air."
I bet you're one of the fags who got elf slave wat do threads binned.
The principle issue is that race is a significant part of the human story. It will always be there. Which side of that you want to be on is up to you.

After high school, who cares what’s cool?

*puts bomb in your car*
File: 57e2d4d70470e.image.jpg (132 KB, 1200x961)
132 KB
132 KB JPG

File: steiner....jpg (59 KB, 532x800)
59 KB
why did he fail his führer?
File: 1565641011299.jpg (9 KB, 217x225)
9 KB
he didn't. liar.
If only he had followed the Führer's orders...

File: hitler gay.jpg (146 KB, 773x708)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
not gay enough

all the girls in my history class hate me after pointing out that native Americans supported the confederacy during the civil war and they say i'm a racist for spreading "fake news"

none of them are actual native Americans themselves
22 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
Now you know why pro-CSA cringelords are called incels, no woman wants anything to do with a man who supports or defends those losers.
Have sex
to be fair he never said he did
>addressing normies as humans
First mistake
Still, applaud your courage
4chan is increasingly not that

Normalfags don't operate on logic. They'll call 19th century figures "neo-Nazis".

It's interesting.

All of this points however to the tragedy of allowing castes to mix. It only ever results in the degradation of the higher caste, not the uplifting of the lower caste.

File: savingpryan.jpg (220 KB, 800x1177)
220 KB
220 KB JPG
How common was it for the military risk the lives of an entire platoon to venture beyond enemy lines to rescue a random private who had zero value to the war effort?
1 reply omitted. Click here to view.
It was a squad, not a platoon, the difference is 8-12 dudes vs 30-40 dudes.
Probably never happened.
US army never leaves anyone.
Whole point of the movie was that it was an extremely irregular occurrence happening only because some higher-up wanted to basically pull off a publicity stunt, and everyone spent the whole movie bitching about it.
That movie does a pretty good job of explaining just how uncommon it was. The justification was that he was the last surviving son in his family.
>some high ranking officer wanted something useless and commands people beneath him to risk their necks for it.
pretty common in the military

H-Hitler San i d-dont think this is a good idea
3 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
They ask you how you are and you just have to say that you're fine. But you're not really fine but get into it.
>why yes, I do believe that I should allow most of my men to get shot then surrender and make pro-USSR propaganda on the radio
Why were the Junkers so based and above their countrymen?
The Virgin austrian Corporal vs the CHAD JUNKERS GENERAL
>why yes I was just following orders until I got worried about losing power then I was fully capable of acting as a foreign agent against the regime and should be given full credit for my selfless acts

File: abhkuk6tptyjxzndlcat.jpg (28 KB, 424x238)
28 KB
What was his problem?
Monarshits and potatoniggers

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.