[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]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




Christ is King
>>
>>13526765
>Christianity elevated women
Damn I really hate Jesus even more now
>>
>>13526765
>christians are the reason i can't fuck some arab slaves after taking the legionnaires to plunder the oil fields
I suffer
>>
>>13526765
> prohibiting all forms of rape
> God literally commands the extermination of an entire city, infants and all, except for the virgin girls
>>
>>13526784
That wasn't a city, moses just found them chilling in the desert. Genocide is fine and dandy until the jews are on the receiving end
>>
>>13526765
I mean, these aspects of Christianity were taken from Stoicism tho. Why doesn't he credit the actual source. Also rape and all this other stuff he's talking about was outlawwed in Judaism thousands of years before Christ. Why is he lying so much?
>>
>>13526784
Not rape if they're married (regardless of their consent to be married).
>>
>>13526799
It's the only way to make their religion sound good
>>
>>13526810
It's a weird cope. Christianity, rightly, limited rights of women compared the the roman world around them that was replete in feminism. So this guy is even wrong about that and it's a positive for his religion. What a cuck faggot.
>>
>>13526784
There's no implication that God thereby wanted them to literally rape women. Sure, as a woman, you might not want your tribe to die, but you probably also don't want to be killed along with the rest of your tribe. You are complaining about an act of mercy upon women who, being unmarried, belonged to no man to begin with. It would be more offensive if the Israelites killed the men and married their widows.
>>
>>13526819
Oh yeah, I’m sure those women were given a choice by the bloodthirsty conquerors who just wiped out their entire families. Quit being so naive lmao.
>>
>>13526799
Christianity further enshrined the rights of women by further restricting the parameters for divorce. You can read about it yourself. There's no doubt that Christianity was an improvement for women over Judaism.
>>
>>13526819
...or you could not kill the entire town and just defeat the army that's attacking you without resorting to genocide.
>>
>>13526829
If they really wanted to die instead, they probably would have just lied and said they were married. How many women do you think did that?
>>
>>13526832
>Christianity further enshrined the rights of women by further restricting the parameters for divorce.
Well it's true that Jesus tighted up divorce law, but that's a far cry from them not being able to use their sexuality for power, and having to see their husbands as their head as Christ is the head of men. That wouldn't fly in the roman society around them.
>>
>>13526819
Christians:
> muh Christian morality is awesome
Also Christians:
> trying to justify and downplay genocide, sex slavery, and general barbarity that they’d condemn from any other religion
>>
>>13526836
That is the same thing. Who's in the army? Men and young boys. Who did they kill? Men and young boys. Think about what you are saying before you say it.
>>
>>13526845
Lol in one of the OT stories the young boys were spared and then the Israelites were chastised for doing so before being ordered to slaughter them all. Read your own fucking book before making ridiculous claims about its “goodness” or “morality.” No amount of gymnastics or explanations will change the patently obvious fact that these are the same justifications used by other civilizations to justify their barbarity and conquests (muh god told me to!)
>>
>>13526841
> sex slavery is better than being slaughtered! My god is so moral!
>>
>>13526844
Nah, I'm not even going to lie, the sexual standards of the time make me uncomfortable and it is unfortunate that they were deemed necessary. All I can think of is that this was a temporary concession that God allowed, like slavery, and that God's ultimate vision was never for a man to enslave another man, or for a man to take a woman as a war prize.
But in other religions, like Islam, this never changed. In Islam, it's still okay to practice slavery and take women as war prizes. You might accuse Christianity of being inconsistent, but you would not criticize us for being against slavery and sexual misconduct. Unless of course, you support those things. In which case you would just be wrong.
>>
>>13526845
>>13526853
God once got mad at a politician for not doing what he wanted, so decided to punish him by killing thousands of his subjects. These people had nothing to do with what their political leader did, but they were murdered by God just cause he was mad.
Stuff like this proves how the God of the Bible is not just or good. Not the real God.
>>
>>13526864
>Christgroyper
>Telling others to seethe and cope
Wow I can tell you take your "religion" very seriously!
>>
>>13526858
Well props for admitting that at least, most Christians don’t have the balls to concede even just that.

The problem is that you’re still trying to claim that your allegedly good god found it prudent to ban shit like gays and shellfish and fabric mixing but not chattel slavery and the slaughtering of civilians in wartime. He clearly has no qualms about banning mundane shit and radical changes to human behaviour and customs are not some sort of obstacle for him.
>>
>>13526856
Marriage is not a form of sex slavery. You are just being a silly goose.
>>13526853
No, you're wrong and also lazy for not just looking it up. Which is embarassing. Anyway, God first told them to kill the young boys and they refused. They recieved the command first, not after.
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.
You guys are so weird. You complain about an act of mercy and then also complain about genocide, which is a complete lack of mercy. In other words, when they don't commit genocide, it's a problem. But when they do commit genocide, it's still a problem. You niggas will literally never be happy or satisfied regardless of what I tell you.
>>
>>13526765
Christianity was only a justification for consolidation of power. It had nothing to do with domestication of the underclasses - it caused their proliferation if anything. The fiercest opponents of Eugenics were always Christians.
>>
>>13526859
Saying that God can commit murder is like saying that a car can commit manslaughter. It's categorically false. God is not capable of commiting murder.
>>
>>13526765
>leftist humanism spawned from Christian morality
Are you finally admitting you're the reason for the decline?
>>
>>13526887
The issue is that your god is clearly not good or moral when they options are “be slaughtered” or “marry me.” That clearly isn’t voluntary, isn’t a real choice to anyone who isn’t a total psycho or is too much of a pussy to dare go against 2000 year old myths.

> marry me or die! This is mercy!
Lol if Genghis Khan was doing this shit I doubt you’d be saying the same.
>>
>>13526765
Actually, it was thanks to Zoroaster, which Mazdak the Younger was greatly improving.
Jesus was a false prophet.
Pythagoras and Empedocles were cool though.
>>
>>13526893
Lol punishing children for the sins of their ruler is absolutely wrong and absolutely murder. The tier of Stockholm Syndrome you must have needs to be a case study.
>>
>>13526887
>Marry me or I'll kill you
Yeah very merciful
Are you a fucking retard?
>>
>>13526893
>Saying that God can commit murder is like saying that a car can commit manslaughter. It's categorically false. God is not capable of commiting murder.
Nope. God gave us the ability to discern justness and rightness from evil. Killing innocent people because you're mad at their political leader is neither just nor good. You can't convince me otherwise.
>>
>>13526883
There was no conception of a "civilian" at that time. It's not like there were a lot of elderly people to begin with, so if a man was old enough to bear a sword (i.e. literal children by today's standards), then he could reasonably be considered a combatant. Anyway, chattel slavery is not specifically mentioned by the Bible, but the slavery described by the Bible is not chattel slavery. Slaves had plenty of rights that people were punished for violating, slaves were routinely set free, and slavery was something that people also volunteered for. It was, in many cases, a contractual agreement between two parties. I'm not saying that I like it, I'm just saying that it's not quite as awful as you are suggesting. The treatment of Africans by Americans, for example, was demonstrably worse than the kind of treatment that the Bible proscribes for slaves. Furthermore, the Bible expressly says that abduction is punishable by death. Slaves were usually acquired through conquest (which admittingly involves coercion), or through pure mutual agreement.
>>
>>13526958
That is to say, innocent of the thing that God is mad at. Having your life taken out of anger at your politician is not just or good.
>>
>>13526906
By what standard
>>
>>13526958
>Nope. God gave us the ability to discern justness and rightness from evil
Satan did that.
>You can't convince me otherwise.
Then why bother replying to me?
Anyway, which story are you referring to? Can you cite it? Not saying you're lying, but I just want to read about it.
>>
>>13526906
No, you're just being unreasonable for the sake of being unreasonable. I'm telling you that lives were spared and you're saying
"NO THAT'S WRONG! THEY SHOULD HAVE COMMITTED TOTAL GENOCIDE INSTEAD!"
Like okay whatever bro, I don't care about your opinions if this is what you sincerely believe.
>>
>>13526914
You're legally illiterate so there's no point in arguing a point of law with you. You're just wrong by definition, but being unread, you have no idea what the definitions mean.
>>
>>13526978
>Satan did that.
No, Adam and Eve knew it was wrong to eat the apple God forbid. They chose to anyway. They chose evil.
>Then why bother replying to me?
Because it's important lies are faced with truth. Killing people because you're mad at someone else is not justice.
>Anyway, which story are you referring to? Can you cite it? Not saying you're lying, but I just want to read about it.
The Egyptian firstborn sons during the Passover (Exodus 11-12)
Pharaoh didn't do what God wanted so God killed a bunch of innocent babies. Not good or just. I can tell this because the real God gave us the ability to discern goodness and justice.
>>
sucky sucky fucky fucky
>>
>>13526765
>the bodies of slaves were treated like outlets for the physical pleasure of those with power

Ah yes Christianity abolished slavery

Oh wait no it fucking didn't
>>
>>13527028
Oh yes, you're referring to the kids. That makes it easier to justify, because dead babies, in my estimation, are assumed into heaven by God. In other words, God essentially gave a free ticket into heaven to however many firstborn sons there were at the time. It's God life, he can do what he wants with it, and saving someone's soul by letting them into heaven is the ultimate act of mercy.
From a Catholic perspective, it's much harder to rationalize because Catholic people believe that unbaptized babies cannot go to heaven. But I am not a papist.
You don't have to accept my views but in my sincere opinion, this is not very offensive to me and it is pretty easy to rationalize.
>>
>>13526990
Lol I don’t know if you’re retarded or being deliberately obtuse, but
“COMPLETE AND UTTER DESTRUCTION OF EVERYONE” and forced marriage aren’t the only options. How fucking dumb are you? If Attila the Hun came out of nowhere over the hills and slaughtered most of your village, are you gonna suck his dick because he gave your daughter or sister the mercy of a marriage at (essentially) gun point.
>>
>>13527054
No credible historian would make the argument that Christianity was not largely responsible for the eventual abolishment of slavery. The countries largely responsible for its dissolution had large Christian populations, furthermore, it was often Christians who advocated against it the most.
>>
>>13527073
What does that have to do with anything? The Bible doesn’t call for the abolition of slavery and in fact, explicitly sanctions it. It even allows you to beat your slaves. The fact that some Christians (when most of the developed world was Christian) were good people and campaigned for slavery to end doesn’t negate that fact or the fact that slavery was allowed, used and proliferated by these Christian empires for centuries.
>>
>>13527114
I agree with you on a technicality, you are correct to say there's no express Biblical command to abolish slavery. The furthest I could argue is to say that the Bible makes a suggestion that some slaves can be freed, but nothing more.
>>
>>13527120
There’s not only no command to abolish it, it is literally allowed. You’re even allowed to beat your slaves. That’s “moral” to you?
>>
>>13526765
cool opinion he has there too bad it isnt based in fact

this is the same cope as the "protestant work ethic" causing western europe to succeed during the industrial revolution or "asiatic despotism" being the reason behind asia's stagnation
>>
>>13527073
>No credible historian would make the argument that Christianity was not largely responsible for the eventual abolishment of slavery.
You mean after they created the largest slave-trading paradigm in world history and worked tens of thousands of slaves (at minimum) to their death?
>>
>>13527135
I would consider the regulations regarding enslavement to be more moral than the other cultural standards of the time. Beyond that, I find the practice of slavery mostly objectionable to begin with.
>>
>>13527171
You are making an argument that can go a lot of ways. For one, not everyone who held slaves was Christian. For two, slavery isn't expressly outlawed in Christianity. But even then, we are still largely against it in the modern day.
>>
>>13527061
All right well I'm talking about from the perspective of our god-given ability to determine justice and goodness. Killing babies because you're mad at their political leader is not just or good. I'm not really interested in using the Bible to try to rationalize ways around this.
>>
File: Hebrews-12-2.jpg (505 KB, 1100x637)
505 KB
505 KB JPG
>>13526765
Jew Jesus is the Jew God bend your Knees gentile Faggot Fucks
>>
>>13527190
Slavery is as moral or immoral as employment in the Bible. The only determining factor is if you are a righteous or unrighteous slave master. That is all that matters in the Bible. Slavery itself is a non-issue, and in fact just a way of life.
>>
>>13526864
lol
>>
>>13527178
Not him but of course regulations on enslavement are moral. But it's a total rationalization and a side stepping of the issue. It's like making regulations on raping kids to mandate using lubrication. And then turning around and saying well this is a good thing.

No, a good thing would be outlawing it.
>>
>>13527190
The problem, of course, is that you just defeated your own argument. Christians massively expanded slavery on a scale that put the arab slave trade to shame, but it's okay because after the fact they stopped doing it? Not all of the slave holders were Christians, but neither were all of the people in opposition to slavery, so how can you claim it as a Christian accomplishment based on the countries involved being majority christian while denying the atlantic slave trade as a Christian creation?

You did get one thing right, though. Slavery isn't outlawed in Christianity - it's barely even condemned. Which makes it pretty obvious that Christianity had little or nothing to do with the abolition of its own slave trade.
>>
>>13527221
Exactly, but it's so hard for people to understand that because they think slavery = bad!
I try to explain it but it's so hard for people to understand. For example, soldiers are basically slaves and they are held in the highest regard by Americans. It's not seen as a bad thing to volunteer yourself selflessly to serve another person in that way.
>>
>>13527230
I mostly agree with you, except that I don't sincerely believe that slavery is a bad thing. If you want to volunteer to do something for little to no pay for some contracted period of time, that can be a very honorable and good thing.
>>
>>13527231
So then who would you say was (largely) responsible for the abolishment of the slave trade? Atheists? Agnostics?...Jews?
>>
>>13527260
Well that would agree that slavery is not a bad thing. I'm just speaking from the context of somebody that might have the cognitive dissidence that they believe the biblical ruling on slavery is fine but also believe slavery is bad. These are contradictory points of view. But yes slavery is not bad so long as you are a righteous slave owner. In fact if you had a great slave owner being a slave would be ideal.
>>
>>13527268
Enlightenment (aka secular) thought spreading amongst the population
>>
>>13527248
>>13527260
>volunteer
>slave
pick one retard
>>
>>13526773
fpbp
>>
>>13527271
And who is responsible for that?
>>
>>13527270
Like God. We of course are slaves to God, who being the perfect Lord, can only guide us righteously and treat us well.
>>
>>13527298
I think that's true to a point but I don't believe the God of the Bible is the true God. I believe this is illustrated in many ways. Or that the Bible was tampered with and stories about him were inserted. Either way, the Bible has to be cast away as the word of God since it can't be trusted.
>>
>>13527294
the collapse of religious hegemony over philosophy with the rise of protestantism as governments were forced to become more secular to deal with religious plurality amongst the citizenry
>>
>>13527298
Except when he gives a believer’s kid cancer and does shit all until he dies as the believer begs and prays for him to heal their kid.
>>
>>13527312
Not a Christian, but the lore is that death comes to us because of Adam's sin. More of like q genetic disease. And kids never got cancer until the modern age so it's likely our fault again there as well. Radiation? The food and water? Who knows.
>>
>>13527374
Do you really think children didn't get cancer before the modern era?
Are you fucking joking? How did you come to this conclusion?
>>
>>13527763
pro-tip: if you don't know what cancer is and can't diagnose it, it doesn't exist.
>>
>>13527770
Touché, I can't tell if you're still fucking with me, because of how insane that is. Im gonna use this in the future. Well played, sir, well played.
>>
>>13526844
Idk man. I feel Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, which should accordingly be translated through the lens of his teachings. Sure, the Bible can be said to be inspired by God, but it was still very much written through the flawed understanding of humans. Is makes sense to me that an archaic people some few thousand years ago might communicate their limited understanding of the greatness of God through myths of conquering and warfare. Violence, unfortunately, is a very common aspect of our species history, especially in the ancient world. Some of the stories, without the context of Christ, in the Old Testament are a little wacky to say the least, but when you take the time to think about the overall themes, and the fact that these works were written as myth instead of objective history, it seems to make a little more sense. That's how I see it anyways, but I'm a retard and could be wrong.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[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.