/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5859070]

What would socety look like if Rome had never adopted Christianity and the west stuck with the Roman/Greek Gods?

[Paradise !!vh7XQhHe/pR No.5859073]

Christianity was a psychological inevitability in a lot of ways, IMO. The Greek Gods were an extension of the disorder in man at that time.

[Anonymous No.5859097]

>>5859070
Muhammadans would have overrun the place and destroyed the west.

[Anonymous No.5859107]

>>5859097
If Christianity didn't become a thing, would Islam even exist?

[Anonymous No.5859110]

>>5859097
>Roman legions
>allowing muhammadans to overrun them
lel

[Anonymous No.5859113]

>>5859097
doesn't take a Christian to see filth and kill it

[Anonymous No.5859117]

>>5859107
Probably not tbh.

[Anonymous No.5859123]

>>5859107
Yes because it will still be around the Levant, India, and China

[Anonymous No.5859126]

>>5859110
>implying Rome wouldn't have collapsed anyway
>implying any of the small resultant states would join together to fight

[Anonymous No.5859321]

Milthraism would be the dominant religion but not the overwhelming majority. Islam probably won't exist and the library of alexendria would still be around or at least last way longer. Everything else is a crapshoot

[Anonymous No.5859323]

>>5859070
We can't know.

[Anonymous No.5859364]

What would the world look like today if it weren't for the dark age where Christianity held back scientific progress, and all the other progresses in general?

[Anonymous No.5859372]

>>5859364

[Anonymous No.5859405]

>>5859110
they were mostly greek at that point and exhausted after a war with the persians. rome was destroyed by germans.

[Anonymous No.5859423]

life would be good, heros would still be something aspired for. accomplishments would be held up. scientific bias towards human beings might be slightly higher.

society would never have turned into the whiny cuntish state it has currently as it is basically going through a teenage rebellion after god died in the enlightenment.

"depravity" would still be around, but probably far less fetishized, modern fetish culture is a weird ass daddy spank me syndrome where god plays the father even though he is no longer believed in.

homo sex would be okay and probably far less frowned on.

maybe a better incarnation of democracy that was truly "in turns" instead of back and forth.


i think it would be nice

[Anonymous No.5859432]

We would still be sacrificing people to Wotan and Donar, I guess.

[Anonymous No.5859669]

>>5859070

Look at India, I gather it would look like that. Some old bearded farts talking deep shit about science while the rest of society is burning animals to please the Gods.

[Anonymous No.5859704]

>>5859097
arent they doing that right now?

[Anonymous No.5859708]

>>5859669
This
Paganism was holding civilization back. Only Christian nations discovered the scientific method and industrialized independently.

[傘 !GP/FStzFfo No.5859713]

What if THE EMPIRE NEVER ENDED

[Anonymous No.5859717]

>>5859423
>homo sex would be okay and probably far less frowned on.
>i think it would be nice

[Anonymous No.5859735]

>>5859423
Not sure about homo sex, Germanics would throw gays in bogs and Romans believed if you took dick you were effeminate. The Greeks would probably be ok with it still

[Anonymous No.5859865]

>>5859708

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29
>The earliest text to use a decimal place-value system, including a zero, is the Jain text from India entitled the Lokavibhāga, dated 458 AD, where śūnya ("void" or "empty") was employed for this purpose
>In 498 AD, Indian mathematician and astronomer Aryabhata stated that "sthānāt sthānaṁ daśaguṇaṁ syāt;"[19] i.e., "from place to place each is ten times the preceding,"[19][20] which is the origin of the modern decimal-based place value notation

Science wouldn't have been possible if not for Indians.

[Anonymous No.5859977]

>>5859865
>Science wouldn't have been possible if not for Indians.


Indian scientists were neat, but the society didn't develop modernity. They didn't use that science to reshape society.

I'm not saying that Christianity was needed for modernity to develop though. Maybe if the West was a pagan society we would have modernized as well. I think it has more to do with city communities and specialized economies.

[Anonymous No.5859985]

>>5859865
>implying there was only ever once chance to discover something throughout history, and if it wasn't discovered then it was never going to be discovered.
I'm sure no one would ever have thought of a decimal place if not for the Indian's!

[Anonymous No.5859990]

How would feminism have occurred?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5859993]

>>5859073
Then they "unite" *psychologically* under the Neoplatonic sun god.

>>5859070
Something more would have to happen to keep the empire up or replace it. Julian could have been a great turning point

>>5859708
Wow, damn Christians or trolls ITT 0/10

>>5859713
Or what if it had ended at all. Say about 1000.

It wouldn't've paradise, but it would've been very interesting

[Anonymous No.5860001]

we wouldnt have the concept of human rights

[Anonymous No.5860007]

>>5859977
India has embraced scientific modernity pretty well though and isn't shackled by the legacies of Judeo-chrstian morality. More people in India believe in evolution than in America, stem cell research isn't a taboo and is one of the major industries there.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5860043]

>>5859993
>It wouldn't've been paradise
Got caught up in the n't've

[Anonymous No.5860136]

>>5859126
Yeah, Rome was partially killed by Christianity.
Christianity shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity, and without roman nationalism the legions don't mean shit.
I'd say that Rome probably would have just kept growing and finding new ways to sustain itself through technology until we were all speaking Latin on Mars.

[Anonymous No.5860139]

>>5860136
100 years ago

[Anonymous No.5860179]

>>5860136
B8

[Anonymous No.5860187]

>>5860136
You watch or read too much scifi m80

[Anonymous No.5860231]

>>5859977

>but the society didn't develop modernity

You act as if modernity is something impressive.

>They didn't use that science to reshape society

Why should they?

[Anonymous No.5860239]

>>5859735
Nah, taking dick up the ass revoked Athenian citizenship, it's why radishes up the ass were a common punishment for being caught with someone's wife.

[Anonymous No.5860241]

>>5859423
(guy who read nietzsche's criticism of christianity while understanding neither christianity nor nietzsche's criticism of it)

[Anonymous No.5860265]

>>5859070
Probably we'd kill each other, if the muslims and the next nomadic didn't do it first.
>>5860136
>I am a genre-fiction reader

[Anonymous No.5860326]

>>5859070
>majority of what constitutes the West
>greek/roman gods
Pick 1 you illiterate. The West is a post-schism terminology.

[Anonymous No.5860731]

Rome would have still collapsed just slightly latter. Without the catholic church colonialism wouldn't have happened, without the Protestant work ethic Capitalism wouldn't have happened. Without Islam we don't have the crusades (which is both a good and a bad thing) and we don't have mass African slavery (Slavery still exists, but not on the scale of a whole continent)

Europe stays a bunch of fiercely independent tribes, but they become more civilized after sacking rome and become the PROUD ARYANS /pol/ wishes they were.
America gets hit by a smallpox plague when explorers finally visit it, but without the catholic church and a gold obsessed Spanish crown the, they don't immediately get colonized so the are able to recover.
The African kingdoms don't get destroyed by Muslim slavers, so the continent isn't in a position to be colonized by Christians a few hundred years latter. So Africa probably isn't a shithole either.

As for the rest of history. It would be impossible to tell. I'm not sure we would be more technologically advanced, but I think the world would be a nicer place.

[Anonymous No.5860830]

>>5860007
>More people in India believe in evolution than in America

American protestants ≠ Christians

>In a 2013 meta-analysis, led by Professor Miron Zuckerman, of 63 scientific studies about IQ and religiosity
>Controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants.[1][2]

It's well known and documented that they are all retarded as fuck.

[Anonymous No.5860850]

>>5859977
>Indian scientists were neat, but the society didn't develop modernity. They didn't use that science to reshape society.

Because Muhammadans came in and set fire to all their knowledge reverting them back a millennia.

>>5859865
>Science wouldn't have been possible if not for Indians.

There was already early notions of 0 and place value way back in Babylon.

[Anonymous No.5860864]

>>5860830
>American protestants ≠ Christians
What do you mean by this? Do you think only Catholics or Orthodox Christians count as Christians? Not defending American protestants, but if they're not Christian, what are they?

[Anonymous No.5860892]

>>5860864
>Do you think only Catholics or Orthodox Christians count as Christians

And the Assyrian Church of the East.

[Anonymous No.5860894]

Gutenberg would have printed the Iliad instead of the Bible

[Anonymous No.5860912]

>>5860864
>but if they're not Christian, what are they

Retarded cults.

[Anonymous No.5860915]

>>5860864
I think he is saying that insane american protestants such as Baptists and Mormons are not christians, not all of them.

[Anonymous No.5860926]

Christianity itself wasn't essential to the emergence of Islam in the Arabian peninsula.

>>5860850
>and set fire to all their knowledge

Gaaah! My knowledge!

You're retarded. Someone must have set fire to your knowledge.

[Anonymous No.5860936]

>>5860830

>Christians that I don't like aren't really Christians

That's not how it works.

[Anonymous No.5860957]

>>5860936
You have a bunch of rules that decide what is and what is not Christian, according to them a lot of sects are indeed not Christian.

[Anonymous No.5860963]

>>5860936
I think his point was that American Protestants make Catholics and European Protestants look bad. I also think you knew that and felt like being a dumbass.

[Anonymous No.5860969]

>>5860926

>The longest running university of India was the Nalanda University. It was built in the 6th century B.C. and was active up till the 13th century. It was a world wide acclaimed university of that time and attracted scholars and students from as far away as Tibet, China, Greece, and Persia to come and gain knowledge there. The admission was secured on the basis of a very tough entrance exam. Knowledge was imparted on virtually all subjects including science, philosophy, medicine, warfare etc. Its fame ran not only in India but also in south-east and central Asia. Its Mathematical as well as the Astronomical department was quite renowned.In fact Nalanda was the first university in the world to have given Astronomy a separate status from Mathematics. When Hsuen Tsang visited Nalanda he was astonished to see the collection of books in the library. The books contained in the library belonged to a wide range of topics, which he had never seen before in his life.Hsuen Tsang also refers to his interaction with the gatekeeper of the library. Who he says knew far lot more than him in almost all the subjects including Medicine and Astronomy. Unfortunately many of the works of Hsuan Tsang got lost in Brahmaputra river during his return journey to China, as such our knowledge about Nalanda and its students are very limited.In 1200 A.D. Islamic zealots led by Bhaktiyar Khilji destroyed the Nalanda university completely. It is said that the library containing invaluable books, kept on burning for nearly six months. With the library all the knowledge mankind had gained in years went into the flame.What Newton discovered many centuries later (Gravity) had already been discovered by the students and teachers of Nalanda university. The books were thrown into the flames by persons who thought that there is no truth other than that written in Quran. And thus pushed the India into the dark age through which she is still groping to pass through.

[Anonymous No.5860979]

>>5860926
Except that mudslimes literally set on fire the great works of literature of the "idol worshippers". This is what Will Durant had to say about it :

>The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is adiscouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicatecomplex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.

Pic related, peaceful muslims respecting other religions.

[Anonymous No.5860991]

>>5860969
See also, the Library of Alexandra.

No Christianity means no Islam. Europe might not have conquered the world, but America, Africa, and the Middle east would have developed cultures superior to our current western civilization. Instead of one civilization of knowledge and reason, we would have two or maybe even three.

[Anonymous No.5860993]

>>5860969
>>5860979
;_; This and the library of Alexandria make me sad.

[Anonymous No.5861001]

>>5860993
>muh useless academia makes me sad
Real philosophy was outside, like the presocratics.

[Anonymous No.5861005]

>>5860969

>Unsourced copypasta full of exaggerations and clearly written by a butthurt Indian

Why would you even bother posting this?

[Anonymous No.5861010]

>>5860991
>>5860993
>people still believe this myth that the LoA was somehow a bastion of knowledge

l m a o

The library of Alexandria had a lot of material, but it didn't have every single copy of everything. Only a minority of works were lost in entirety. In addition the LoA wasn't even that spectacular, a few other ancient libraries were on par.

[Anonymous No.5861013]

>>5861010
Yeah, that's a perfectly good excuse for burning it to the ground

>It wasn't even that good!

[Anonymous No.5861016]

Paul Veyne wrote about that.
Basically it would have remained an avant-garde movement, sorta, Christianity, if it didn't have Constantine.

Maybe the Roman empire would have still suffered barbarian invasions regardless of its new religiosity.
Or it would have gone China and alternated from dynasty to dynasty ( which it was in the process of doing that ).

[Anonymous No.5861017]

>>5861013
No, there is no doubt it was a tragedy that such a historic building was destroyed, but it shouldn't make you "sad".

[Anonymous No.5861018]

>>5860979

>Will Durant

Tell me more about an outdated account of the conquests written by a nonspecialist.

>muh evil mudslimez narrative

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5861042]

>>5860936
Read up on some church history.

All protestants deny apostolic succession and tradition.
Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science deny the divinity of Christ.
Christian Science denies the existence of the physical world and sin.
Mormons are literally polytheists and believe in becoming gods with secret handshakes.

Protestantism is just lazy paganism where you just rip off Jesus' back story for your new god and theology with no baring to what the Church has actually taught throughout history.

[Anonymous No.5861046]

>>5861017
Why not? What's not sad about the massive destruction of intellectual achievements?

[Anonymous No.5861061]

>>5861018
Kek, butthurt mudslime detected.

Do you deny that the muslim conquest of India was a catastrophe for indian civilization?

[Anonymous No.5861106]

Look to India's religious "system" and China's government favoritism.

That is, many cults to many gods with many beliefs all (more or less) coexisting and feeding off of each other. Meanwhile, the government is largely accepting of any religion that works with it and does not try to overthrow it (As the Glycon cult, Judaism, and Christianity tried to do), giving favoritism and bonuses to "good" religions that support it.

In the case of China, although the government is staunchly made up of people who practice the religion of Communism (albeit nominally), Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism are all "favored" and allowed to practice freely. Chinese Folk Religion is allowed to practice freely and has mingled heavily with the three "favored" religions. Likewise, in Ancient Rome, Stoicism and Mithraism were given favor by the government, which was made up of Stoics and Greco-Roman Pagans. Greco-Roman Pagans and people of all other cultures were allowed to practice freely.

[Anonymous No.5861127]

>>5861106
>staunchly made up of people who practice the religion of Communism

My sides, they be in orbit

[Anonymous No.5861132]

>>5861046
because I literally just told you it wasn't massive destruction, barely anything was lost. Do you think living people just forgot things because they lost the record of it?

[Anonymous No.5861134]

>>5861042
While I am no fan of protestants you are not listing Christians at all.
Protestants are Lutherans, Anglicans and such.

[Anonymous No.5861138]

>>5860731
Both the Greeks and the Romans engaged in colonialism. The Greeks colonized all over the Mediterranean (Sicily, the coast of Anatolia, Magna Graecia, the coast of Egypt, the coast of France, etc) and the Romans colonized much of continental Europe and the Middle East.

We might not have seen colonialism as we do now what with religious conversion being a desired outcome, but greed would certainly still be there. We might have seen a slower colonization of the Americas, certainly, but there would still be White Men spreading Smallpox to the American Natives and Redksins giving Europeans Syphilis.

And of course, if Rome ever actually got a European enemy to match it, colonialism just to beat the dirty barbarians would probably happen. Maybe the Picts get their shit together? Doubtful. Maybe the circumstances necessary to create a Chrstianless Rome result in Arminius actually managing to create his German Rome?

[Anonymous No.5861141]

>>5861061
>Do you deny that the muslim conquest of India was a catastrophe for indian civilization?

Considering that some of the greatest efflorescences of that civilization occurred under the Mughals, yes, I do.

Conquest has caused destruction and disruption in nearly every society. It also, in the longer term, has opened up new intellectual and cultural possibilities by forcing people from different backgrounds to interact and come to terms with each other. That's precisely what happened in India (and what had happened in India before the Muslims ever arrived there, e.g. during the period of the Gupta empire.)

[Anonymous No.5861144]

>>5861127
>Implying Communism isn't a religion
Get with the times bro. Gods don't shoot lightning bolts anymore, they toss you in jail.

[Anonymous No.5861147]

>>5861132
The autodafes of Nazi Germany also sadden me, although nothing was lost.

[Anonymous No.5861151]

>>5861141
>Considering that some of the greatest efflorescences of that civilization occurred under the Mughals, yes, I do.
What did the Mughals achieve, intellectually speaking? What is their legacy, apart from a few pretty mausoleums?

[Anonymous No.5861160]

>>5861151
The Mughals achieved significantly more than the non-wizards ever did.

[Anonymous No.5861169]

>>5861160
I smiled. 6/10

[Anonymous No.5861172]

>>5859405
Both those sentences are wildly incorrect. Like laughably so.

[Anonymous No.5861185]

>>5861046
>Why not? What's not sad about the massive destruction of intellectual achievements?

Shit like this was part of the normal pattern of history everywhere. What's sad is when people try to single particular episodes out and embellish them with dramatic details in order to push some dumb agenda. We don't know when or why the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, and as someone else pointed out, there's no reason to assume (as you do) that the effect of its destruction had a huge, lasting negative impact on the intellectual achievement of mankind.

[Anonymous No.5861189]

>>5861134
Lutheranism and Calvinism theology is retarded
Anglicanism is queen and nation worship
Anabaptism has no grounding in history

etc etc

[Anonymous No.5861198]

>>5860136
>Christianity shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole deity
This I actually agree with, but I don't see how the idea that Christianity had anything to do with the empire's collapse is sustainable. Or what nationalism had to do with the legions' effectiveness.

[Anonymous No.5861208]

>>5861185
> We don't know when or why the Library of Alexandria was destroyed
Actually we do. It was destroyed multiple times.

The first time it was accidentally burnt down when Caesar was attacked in Alexandria. He burnt his own ships, which caught fire to the dock, which spread to the city.

The second time was when Aurelian besieged the city.

The third time was when Diocletian ordered it destroyed for being a Pagan institution.

The fourth (and apparently final) time was when it was destroyed for being Pagan/Christian by Mohammeds Muslim invaders.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5861240]

>>5860912
All of Christianity is a flock of retarded cults. Don't be such a dolt.

[Anonymous No.5861415]

>>5861208
>The third time was when Diocletian ordered it destroyed for being a Pagan institution.
But Diocletian was a pagan; he was one of those responsible for the Great Persecution of Christians. I've never heard that he had the library destroyed before.

[Anonymous No.5861481]

>>5861208

It hasn't been established that any library still existed for the Muslims to destroy. The consensus seems to be that it probably did not exist at that time. In any case, Muhammad had died by then and the leader of the Muslims would have been 'Umar.

[Anonymous No.5861521]

>>5859123

[Anonymous No.5861525]

>>5859323
this

[Anonymous No.5861537]

>>5861521
>not knowing history

[Anonymous No.5861548]

>>5859735
>Romans believed if you took dick you were effeminate
There's a difference between that and believing homosexuality is morally wrong and all that funk. For example, look at liberal comedians who use gay stereotypes for comedy.

>Germanics would throw gays in bogs
Well that's interesting.

[Anonymous No.5861575]

>>5860231

I'm can't say for sure whether modernity was a good thing, all things considered. But it is the most influential event in human history together with agriculture and the axial age combined. And that's by definition quite impressive.

[Anonymous No.5861580]

>>5861208
>The third time was when Diocletian ordered it destroyed for being a Pagan institution.

HAHAHAHAHAHAA

[Anonymous No.5861644]

>>5861537
please explain what you're talking about

it was contended, according to my understanding, that islam would not have come to exist without the influence of christianity and judaism. this seems reasonable to me, given my limited knowledge of the islam's origins.

you said it will still be around in the levant, india, and china. i don't know what that means and it seems like a non sequitur. please explain what you mean.

[Anonymous No.5861675]

>>5861644
Christianity existed outside Rome and Muhammad would have still heard of it and plagiarized it.

[Anonymous No.5861813]

>>5861144
Hilarious. All that misguided absolutism. Further evidence that much of /pol/ cannot understand a world that isn't expressed in extremes and polarisations: for them, there is no such thing as middle ground.

[Anonymous No.5861814]

>>5860969
sometimes i fear that there will be a culture a thousand years from now that will look back on some great catastophe that made us loose all the knoledge archived on the internet the same way we look back on the library of alexandria

[Anonymous No.5861823]

>>5859070
We'd have been conquered by Islam, and I'd probably be speaking some mongrelized german that is written with arab letters.

[Anonymous No.5861838]

>>5859735
This.

[Anonymous No.5861877]

>>5861823
Islam would not exist without Christianity, the people of the middle east would be Zorostran or pagan Baal worshipers.

[Anonymous No.5861936]

>>5861644
>it was contended, according to my understanding, that islam would not have come to exist without the influence of christianity and judaism. this seems reasonable to me, given my limited knowledge of the islam's origins.

Neither religion was essential to the historical circumstances surrounding its rise, and even with regard to the particular form it took, Jewish influences were more frequently encountered and important than Christian ones.

>>5861675

>plagiarism

I don't understand this meme. Every major religion draws from its predecessors and most of them make no attempt to hide this.

[Anonymous No.5861946]

It would look like India, a civilization that never turned against the indo-european gods. if you ever go past a hindu temple and see all the women in saris praying to a giant white statue it's like looking back in time to rome

[Anonymous No.5861954]

>>5859073

christianity was inevitable once rome turned towards oriental despotism with one ruler...paganism suits all the factions in a democracy, monotheism (birthed in despotic egypt) better matches rule by a single man

[Anonymous No.5861973]

The Romans were always religious copycat tryhards. Jupiter wasn't always a Zeus clone but they just copy/pasted Greek culture wholesale, so why wouldn't they do the same when there's a hip new religion on the scene?

[Anonymous No.5861974]

Lol, history threads on /lit/ are shit. Hardly better than elsewhere. Why do people talk about the Romans etc when they have no actual knowledge or understanding of it?

[Anonymous No.5861985]

>>5861877
Muhammad didn't live in Rome

[Anonymous No.5862007]

>>5861985
Mohammed was exposed to Christianity when he traveled to the Levant to for trade, then he copied it.

[Anonymous No.5862080]

>>5861974
>Why do people talk about the Romans etc when they have no actual knowledge or understanding of it?

History for most people here isn't something to be analyzed or understood. It's something to be mined for examples of things I like being good/things you like being bad.

>>5862007
>Mohammed was exposed to Christianity when he traveled to the Levant to for trade

All of Mecca would have been exposed to Christianity; its role in the commerce between Syria and Yemen was important enough that Christians went there as well.

But Islam is based far less on Christian precedents than Christianity is on Jewish precedents, so again, I don't get the 'he copied it' thing.

[Anonymous No.5862086]

>>5862007
Holy crap he did a shitty job then.

[Anonymous No.5862150]

>>5861936
>>plagiarism
>I don't understand this meme. Every major religion draws from its predecessors and most of them make no attempt to hide this.

Because some religions are plagiarized.

The Hebrew religion dates back to the beginning of civilization, Christianity is a continuation and fulfillment of the Hebrew religion, Talmudism is a reaction to Christianity to rally the few remaining hold outs from converting, Muhammadanism is a blatant ahistorical rewrite (aka plagiarism) of Christianity without the trinity, and Mormonism is clearly plagiarized from the "View of the Hebrews", 18xxs era King James Bible, "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain", and "The First Book of Napoleon, the Tyrant of the Earth" among other sources.

[Anonymous No.5862163]

>>5862080
>But Islam is based far less on Christian precedents than Christianity is on Jewish precedents, so again, I don't get the 'he copied it' thing.

He copied the idea of a universal judiasm, duh how hard is that to grasp

[Anonymous No.5862176]

>>5861240
>don't be such a dolt

You first. I can't believe I'm responding to your bait.

[Anonymous No.5862190]

Wouldn't have happened. We would have adopted Islam.

I can't think of a major civilization which didn't end up adopting a major scriptural-religious system.

[Anonymous No.5862191]

>>5862086
>Holy crap he did a shitty job then.

The more he preached it, the less he cared for it. All the "religion of peace" propaganda is from early Islam.

[Anonymous No.5862224]

>>5862150

>The Hebrew religion dates back to the beginning of civilization

The Hebrew people don't even date back to the beginning of civilization. The Hebrew scriptures draw very obviously from Mesopotamian precedents.

>Christianity is a continuation and fulfillment of the Hebrew religion

If you're coming at this from such a blatantly partisan angle, I don't see much of a point in continuing this discussion. This statement is valid from a Christian perspective, but it's no more inherently true than the idea that Islam is a "continuation and fulfillment" of the Abrahamic tradition.

>Muhammadanism is a blatant ahistorical rewrite (aka plagiarism) of Christianity without the trinity

I can tell you're red-pilled by the way you use the term Muhammadans. Very Aryan of you, brother.

Why do idiots like you bother posting?

[Anonymous No.5862228]

>>5860001
Uawwwh...
what are you on about mate?

[Anonymous No.5862237]

>>5862163
>He copied the idea of a universal judiasm

The roots of religious universalism in the Middle East long predate Christianity. The fact that both Christianity and Islam embody this tendency doesn't mean that one copied the other.

[Anonymous No.5862252]

>>5862191

I don't know what's funnier—the fact that someone made that graphic earnestly, or the fact that you saved it and posted it just as earnestly. It's a nice companion piece to that Christian Dark Ages one.

[Anonymous No.5862275]

>>5860969
>6th century B.C.
>burning for more than six months
>all knowledge mankind had gained in years went into the flame
>and thus pushed India into the dark age
>and thus pushed

>I don't know how to use google or fact check
>I will not make any comment regarding the author of this copypasta, nor post a source
>exaggerations are awesome
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda

Being said, I had never heard of Nalanda before, so thanks.

[Anonymous No.5862310]

>>5862252
What do you think is wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.5862315]

>>5862237
Dude, you seem very invested in the belief that Islam is not derived from Christianity, why this bizarre hangup? Even Muslims recognize Islam is a continuation of Christianity...

[Anonymous No.5862332]

>>5861208
>Diocletian ordered it destroyed for being a Pagan institution
>Diocletian
>Diocletian the pagan
>Diocletian the emperor literally famous for the Great Persecution of Christians
>Diocletian who published the "Edict against the Christians"
>Diocletian who was demonized by later Christians for how fucking mean he was to Christians


And the fourth destruction? The Muslims? Yeah the first historians to mention it came 500 years after it supposedly happened. The library most likely didn't even exist in 642. We have historians that wrote about the conquest and literally none of those motherfuckers mentioned the burning of the library by Muslims.

[Anonymous No.5862400]

>>5862224
>If you're coming at this from such a blatantly partisan angle, I don't see much of a point in continuing this discussion. This statement is valid from a Christian perspective, but it's no more inherently true than the idea that Islam is a "continuation and fulfillment" of the Abrahamic tradition.

Muhammad is not foretold of in the Abrahamic tradition nor the Tanakh nor the Gospels.
Christians placed the Tanakh ~unaltered~ into their bibles.
The Quran contradicts the Tanakh and Gospels.

It is not the same at all.

>I can tell you're red-pilled by the way you use the term Muhammadans

Followers/worshipers of Muhammad who do as he did aka Muhammadans
Followers/worshipers of Christ who do as he would do aka Christians
Followers/worshipers of Buddha aka Buddhists

If I wanted to be offensive there's asslifter, muzzie, carpet kisser, mudslime, Quran thumper, muzrat, koranimal, raghead, towelhead, pisslamist, muslimtard, sand nigger, terrorist, etc to choose from...

[Anonymous No.5862517]

>>5862310

First of all, and most egregiously, there's a watermark in fucking Papyrus font.

Beyond that, it's a perfect example of a shitposting image: it attempts to be inflammatory, cites no sources, and has all the other trappings of something strung together by an idiot with no background in the subject matter.

>>5862315
>Dude, you seem very invested in the belief that Islam is not derived from Christianity, why this bizarre hangup?

I imagine it seems that way because I've responded to several people who are utterly convinced that it is. I'm posting about it because it's something that I know about.

>Even Muslims recognize Islam is a continuation of Christianity...

Recognizing that it's part of the same prophetic tradition (which is plainly evident) isn't quite the same as what's being implied ITT. And again, I would stress that Judaism was more important than Christianity to early Islam.

>>5862400
>Muhammad is not foretold of in the Abrahamic tradition nor the Tanakh nor the Gospels.

Whether or not Muhammad, Jesus, or anyone else is 'foretold' depends on who's reading the scripture.

>Christians placed the Tanakh ~unaltered~ into their bibles.

Yet most of them will tell you that a great deal of the old law has been abrogated by Christ. This is not substantially different from Muslim attitudes toward earlier scriptures.

>It is not the same at all.

Depends on who you ask.

>Followers/worshipers of Muhammad who do as he did aka Muhammadans

Nobody worships Muhammad (or the Buddha, generally, but that's beside the point.) It makes no sense. You're using an antiquated term to seem vaguely edgy in a way that even you
don't understand.

[Anonymous No.5862554]

>>5862517
>You're using an antiquated term

It was the word for Muslims up to mid 1960s. You sound like a young butthurt Muslim.

>cites no sources
>there's a watermark in fucking Papyrus font

top kek

[Anonymous No.5862590]

>>5862517
>Nobody worships Muhammad

Muslims will kill over making cartoons of Muhammad but not god. All Muslims believe doing exactly as Muhammad did is the most righteous way of life. Islam clearly makes Muhammad Allah's master to grant anything Muhammad desires. He's pretty much supergod or god^2 as Muslims are concerned.

>it's a perfect example of a shitposting image: it attempts to be inflammatory and has all the other trappings of something strung together by an idiot with no background in the subject matter

Clearly you've never seen a shit posting image.

[Anonymous No.5862617]

>>5862554
>It was the word for Muslims up to mid 1960s.

...making it antiquated.

>You sound like a young butthurt Muslim.

You sound like you've given up on posting anything of substance.

[Anonymous No.5862679]

we wouldnt have corn :(

[Anonymous No.5862689]

>>5862590
>Muslims will kill over making cartoons of Muhammad but not god.

I'm sure that the people who do that would be perfectly willing to kill over cartoons mocking the Muslim conception of God, but those don't seem to be drawn nearly as often.

>All Muslims believe doing exactly as Muhammad did is the most righteous way of life.

They believe in following his example, sometimes down to small details in matters of prayer and whatnot, but the record of his life isn't complete or reliable enough to even know exactly what he did in every situation. Even if it were possible, there's a hadith where he (allegedly) says that his example is only authoritative in religious matters.

>Islam clearly makes Muhammad Allah's master to grant anything Muhammad desires.

Not really sure what this means, but the traditional (i.e., Islamic) accounts of his life contain a number of episodes in which he doesn't receive a revelation when he expects or needs one. In some cases this has the effect of embarrassing him or causing him to worry.

>He's pretty much supergod or god^2 as Muslims are concerned.

Muslims certainly revere him, and some carry it to extremes, but it isn't tantamount to the sort of worship that one would offer a deity. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the religion's most basic teachings preclude his deification and scripture assures Muslims that he's no more than an exemplary human being.

[Anonymous No.5862714]

>>5859110
>Forgetting the early conquests of Islam which took Egypt, the Levant and Anatolia

[Anonymous No.5862767]

>>5862714

The Arabs couldn't hold much beyond the Taurus, but yeah, the Byzantines got BTFO in Syria especially.

[Anonymous No.5863111]

>>5862590

>Muslims will kill over making cartoons of Muhammad but not god

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism_in_Islam
>Aniconism in Islam is a proscription in Islam against the creation of images of sentient living beings. The most absolute proscription is of images of God in Islam, followed by depictions of Muhammad, and then Islamic prophets and the relatives of Muhammad, but the depiction of all humans and animals is discouraged in the hadith and by the long tradition of Islamic authorities, especially Sunni ones

>All Muslims believe doing exactly as Muhammad did is the most righteous way of life

Because to Muslims, Muhammad was the greatest man to ever live.

>Islam clearly makes Muhammad Allah's master

Oh boy, do you have no idea what you're talking about. That's just about the most forbidden thought in Islam - nothing is God's master in Islam. In Islam, the universe is deterministic, and God controls everything. Even Muhammad.

[Anonymous No.5863116]

>>5863111
>the universe is deterministic

How can people be that stupid. If that's true then Allah wanted me to do this...

[Anonymous No.5863149]

>>5863116

>How can people be that stupid

Many non-Muslims also think that it is.

>If that's true then Allah wanted me to do this...

Yep. Muslims sincerely believe that some people will burn the Qur'an, and that this is God's will.

[Anonymous No.5863327]

>>5863111
>In Islam, the universe is deterministic, and God controls everything. Even Muhammad.

'Asharism isn't all of Islam, brodude.

[kitty !kitty/EnNg No.5863342]

>>5863111

the reason why they don't like it is actually pretty clear, they didn't want those paganish rituals like catholics and others had, all that carrying to and fro statues of virgin mary and saints, worshiping drawn images of them, especially those images which have long history and used to make miracles etc

they went too far though persecuting even non-religious depictions of them

[Anonymous No.5863807]

Why has Christianity in the west devolved into self-help attitudes?(platitudes?)

[o !!r3+23beQiOG No.5863825]

>>5863111
> In Islam, the universe is deterministic, and God controls everything.

I don't think that's true.

[Anonymous No.5863832]

>>5863342
Catholics don't worship statues and saints fyi.

[Anonymous No.5863834]

>>5863807
It has with many protestant denominations, Catholics and Orthodox don't seem to have that problem.

[Anonymous No.5863839]

>>5863807

Because most of the 'problems' that it pretends to 'solve' either turned out to be non-problems or were solved by better methods

[Anonymous No.5863845]

>>5863834
Catholics are just as bad as the Protestants. Haven't you been keeping up with the pope? Orthodox Christianity is where it's at.

[Anonymous No.5863868]

>>5859372
Why exactly is >>5859364 bait?

[Anonymous No.5863869]

>>5863845
Yeah, this pope will pass and we will get a normal pope ater him.
It isn't like this is the first bad pope.

[Anonymous No.5863878]

>>5863111

The universe is not deterministic in many schools of Islamic theology. The mu'tazilah did not accept this as it violated free will and therefore moral responsibility.

Muhammad (alayhi as-salam) is only the greatest man to ever live (al-insan al-kamil) in certain schools of thought. It is also worth mentioning that this is not a materialistic doctrine, I don't know where the idea that Muhammad is infallible got its genesis but it does float around a bit. Al-Insan al-Kamil has to do with a doctrine of perfect consciousness, that is perfect awareness and contemplation of Allah (subhanahu wa taala) and certainly doesn't have to do with whether Muhammad did so-and-so at a specific site. There are multiple instances in the hadeeth where Muhammad says something and one of the Sahabah asks if Allah told him that this is best or if it is Muhammad's thoughts, Rasulullah then replies that it is his own thought and his companion says then this plan will fail and that it is no good.

[Anonymous No.5863880]

>>5863869
The issue, though, is that Catholics love the current pope.

[Anonymous No.5864363]

>what if no magic jew worship
>not a single mention of jewish global hegemony
stay pleb, lit

[Anonymous No.5864610]

>>5863869
It's not just the pope, it's that a huge majority of Catholics don't even believe in or agree with basic Catholic doctrine. In America alone, 90%+ of Catholics have used contraception and 60% support homosexual "marriage." These people aren't Catholic, they're liberal Protestants. Catholicism outside Africa and Asia has degenerated into Episcopalianism.

[Anonymous No.5864628]

>>5864610
Oh that all is true, but I don't count nominal Cathilics as Catholics.
In Poland, Croatia, Slovakia it is somewhat strong, as in 20-30% of people.

[Anonymous No.5864685]

>>5863868
because the Christian Church was directly responsible for all intellectual preservation and progress in an age where everyone was borderline retarded

[Anonymous No.5864751]

>>5863327

Really? Thanks for the information. I thought that the Sunni-Shia divide was the only division in Islam.

>>5863825

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Islam
>Qadar (Arabic: قدر, transliterated qadar, meaning "fate", "divine fore-ordainment", "predestination")[1] is the concept of divine destiny in Islam
>Qadar is one of the aspects of aqidah. Some Muslims believe that the divine destiny is when God wrote down in the Preserved Tablet ("al-Lauḥ al-Maḥfūẓ") all that has happened and will happen, which will come to pass as written. According to this belief, a person's action is not caused by what is written in the Preserved Tablet but, rather, the action is written in the Preserved Tablet because God already knows all occurrences without the restrictions of time

Within Islam, God knows you'll never convert, and that you'll burn the Qur'an. I'll admit that I was wrong when I said that within Islam God made you do things.

>>5863878

Acknowledged. Thank you for the information.

[Anonymous No.5864807]

>>5864751
>Really? Thanks for the information. I thought that the Sunni-Shia divide was the only division in Islam.

Nah, there are tons of others. There are endless branches of branches within each of those sects, there are Muslims (e.g., 'Ibadis) who are neither Sunni nor Shi'i, etc. It's impossible for a widespread religion not to experience constant, shifting ideological divisions.

[Anonymous No.5865877]

>>5864807
>It's impossible for a widespread religion not to experience constant, shifting ideological divisions.

Christianity disagrees.

[Anonymous No.5865895]

>>5865877
>What is Orthodoxy.
>What is Miaphysitism.
>What is Protestantism.
>What is Mormonism.

And all of those have their own sub-sects.

[Anonymous No.5865897]

>>5865877

I don't get what you're trying to say. I know that you're aware of the numerous schisms that have divided Christianity over the last 2,000 years.

[Anonymous No.5865921]

>>5865877

[Anonymous No.5866047]

>>5865921
What does that look like for all the Protestant churches in the last 500 years?

[Anonymous No.5866101]

>>5861172
>The prolonged and escalating Byzantine–Sassanid wars of the 6th and 7th centuries and the recurring outbreaks of bubonic plague (Plague of Justinian) left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Arabs. The last of these wars ended with victory for the Byzantines: Emperor Heraclius regained all lost territories, and restored the True Cross to Jerusalem in 629.[3]

Nevertheless, neither empire was given any chance to recover, as within a few years they were struck by the onslaught of the Arabs (newly united by Islam), which, according to Howard-Johnston, "can only be likened to a human tsunami".[4] According to George Liska, the "unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam".[5]

>Medieval Greek, also known as Byzantine Greek,[1] is the stage of the Greek language between the beginning of the Middle Ages around 600 and the Ottoman conquest of the city of Constantinople in 1453. The latter date marked the end of the Middle Ages in Southeast Europe. From the 7th century onwards, Greek was the only language of administration and government in the Byzantine Empire. This former stage of language is thus described as Byzantine Greek. The study of the Medieval Greek language and literature is a branch of Byzantine Studies, or Byzantinology, the study of the history and culture of the Byzantine Empire.

If you're sitting on some magic source, please share.

[Anonymous No.5866469]

>>5865921
>>5865895
>>What is Orthodoxy [aka Eastern Orthodox]
Catholicism, they've repeatedly proclaimed their theologies are the same in recent years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_%E2%80%93_Roman_Catholic_theological_differences#Official_position_of_the_Catholic_Church
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic%E2%80%93Orthodox_Joint_Declaration_of_1965
>>What is Miaphysitism [aka Oriental Orthodox]
Catholicism, they've jointly proclaimed their theologies are the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy#20th_century
>What is Assyrian Church
Catholicism, they've signed a joint declaration proclaiming their theologies are the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Christological_Declaration_Between_the_Catholic_Church_and_the_Assyrian_Church_of_the_East
>>What is Protestantism.
A provably wrong ahistorical cult
>>What is Mormonism.
A laughably wrong ahistorical cult

>>5865897
Protestantism is not Christianity and the other schisms either have the same theology or have died out.

[Anonymous No.5866529]

>>5866469
>Recent, feel-goody ecumenical proclamations mean that there are no differences between different Christianities - Praise Catholic Jesus!

You're totally right dude. Actually, there are no religious divisions in the world at all because the Dali Llama says there just different paths to the same truth man.

>>5866469
>Protestantism is not Christianity and the other schisms either have the same theology or have died out.

Oh yeah, except for the religions I don't like. They don't count because they're WRONG.

Why bother participating in the discussion if you're going to act this way? Catholic shitposters are fucking worse than ISIS.

[Anonymous No.5866530]

>>5866469

>lol everyone else is wrong except for the one TRUE sect that I personally believe in

[Anonymous No.5866542]

>>5866047

Both of these charts are pretty greatly simplified. Remember, though: these Protestant sects aren't REALLY Christianity because that one Catholitard says so.

[Anonymous No.5866582]

>>5866529
>They don't count because they're WRONG

But they are

[Anonymous No.5866614]

>>5866530
>>>lol everyone else is wrong except for the one TRUE sect that I personally believe in

>implying the roman church is one sect and not many sub-churches in communion with it
>implying the eastern orthodox church is one sect and not many sub-churches in communion with it
>implying the oriental orthodox church is one sect and not many sub-churches in communion with it

Totally only like ONE sect....

[Anonymous No.5866620]

>>5859070
Islam would have still happened and no later than a thousand years ago it would stretch from the North Sea to the Pacific, there would be no such thing as computers as all scientific progress in the muslim world ceased around a thousand years ago. Frankly you probably wouldn't even be able to read.

[Anonymous No.5866632]

>>5866542
>Anabaptist
>protestant

nope

[Anonymous No.5866735]

>>5866582

Bismillah ir-rahman ir-rahim

Did you know that Islam also has no divisions, because the Rafidah and the pseudo-Sunnis aren't real Muslims? @:^)>>>

>>5866614
>many sub-churches in communion with it

...so divisions within divisions. This confirms what has already been said.

>>5866620
>all scientific progress in the muslim world ceased around a thousand years ago.

Yes, ALL of it.

[Anonymous No.5866813]

>>5866735
>...so divisions within divisions. This confirms what has already been said.

All with identical ideology.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5866846]

>>5866632
>Anabaptist
>Catholic/Orthodox

Noped.

[Anonymous No.5867456]

>>5866813
>All with identical ideology.

Clearly not, or there'd be no need for different churches to exist. Quit being thick. "Btw we agree now :-)" is a nice gesture, but there are very fucking clear ideological differences between different Christian denominations, even if they mean to express the same truth.

[Anonymous No.5867679]

>>5867456
>Clearly not, or there'd be no need for different churches to exist

Assyrian churches felt the need to be independent of Rome and used a disagreement over calling Mary "Mother of God" instead of "the Mother of Christ our God and Savior" to do so
Oriental churches split off over wording of "Christ has 2 inseparable natures, Human and God" vs "Christ nature is made of Human and God"
Eastern churches just slowly drifted away becoming independent until the fall of Constantinople and then fragmented into smaller national churches over fears of outside power manipulating them.

The only visible difference between them is how mass is run and language. Few unresolved questions, that are in the process of being resolved, mostly concerning hierarchy keep them from reuniting yet. Break away churches from all three have already successfully reunited with Rome.

[Anonymous No.5867719]

>>5867679
>Oriental churches split off over wording of "Christ has 2 inseparable natures, Human and God" vs "Christ nature is made of Human and God"

Christological disagreements were severe enough that they engendered a great deal of controversy and persecution under the Byzantines. Major ideological differences underlie what you play down as differences in wording.

>Few unresolved questions, that are in the process of being resolved, mostly concerning hierarchy keep them from reuniting yet.

When all of Christendom exists in harmony under a single church, professing a single creed, you let me know. My point stands that fragmentation is inevitable in large religions. I don't know why you're so hung up on denying this when it's not even really up for debate.

[Anonymous No.5867757]

>>5867719
Stop pretending protestantism shares any similarity to the rest of Christianity

[Anonymous No.5867844]

>>5867757

I didn't say anything about Protestantism in that post, but yes, of course it's Christian.

[Anonymous No.5869308]

>>5864685
If the Church wasn't so strict in the middle ages, there would be no need for it to preserve anything, as freedom of thought and speech would exist, and people would preserve things themselves.

[Anonymous No.5869328]

>>5869308
>relying on Joe Peasant not to burn that book for warmth during the harsh, black-plague ridden winter
top kek, sir.

Freedom of thought and speech weren't going to educate the masses, doing so was basically beyond the technological means of society at the time. When one book took a team of transcribers a week or two to crank out, you only let the rich and powerful have them, cause they treated them with respect. As such knowledge always lay with the ruling castes (nobility, church) at least until the integration of the printing press on a large scale.

You take it for granted, because you grew up in the first world in the nineties, but without education - and the ability to read - people don't have a tangible sense of anything beyond their horizon or outside of their lifetime, and as such don't preserve things. Only institutions had that power.

[Anonymous No.5869341]

>>5869328
But the state of the society back then would have been different if it weren't for the harsh behavior of the Church. Not to mention there were lots of wars which were led because of it.
If it were for no church back in the middle ages, if the ancient Roman and Greek civilizations remained, with its prosperity we would be on a whole different level now.

[Anonymous No.5869351]

>>5869341

The bottom fell out of Greek civilization before the church was ever created, and the Roman civilization fell because of its own economic fuckups and migratory population pressure, not because of the church. Sincerely wishing that Christianity had never been is an idle fantasy.

[Anonymous No.5869353]

>>5869351
The whole world would be better without religion. Plus, you ignored how I said that because of Christianity a lot of wars were led.

[Anonymous No.5869361]

>>5869341
So if magic all empires collapse, it's inevitable, then hypothetical things might have happened, but because they didn't the institution which preserved all knowledge is evil?

Is that about it?

[Anonymous No.5869364]

>>5869353
War predates Christianity and will most likely post-date it, too. This fact renders your point moot, as one does not relate to the other.

[Anonymous No.5869370]

>>5869353

>The whole world would be better without religion.

I'm glad that you have chosen to illustrate so overtly what I have just said, that a wish for Christianity never to have been is your own idle and inconsequential fantasy.

>you ignored how I said that because of Christianity a lot of wars were led.

Because it's trivial. Being involved in wars doesn't make a thing bad or evil, it certainly doesn't mean that we would be better off if everything because of which wars have been led had never been. A lot of wars were led because of the Roman andcivilization too: why is that okay, but wars of Christianity are not?

[Anonymous No.5869376]

>>5869370

>Roman andcivilization too

Roman and Greek civilizations too*

[Anonymous No.5869378]

>>5859070
The Christian god would simply not let it happen. He decided it was time to convert people to the right religion and started banishing the pagans.

[Anonymous No.5869379]

Christianity as a tool to unite people was great.

They obviously made morality a lot worse, but it was already surmounted by the Jews so you can't blame them for too much.

Really we are living in the complete antithetical of Christianity at this point, Nietzsche had predicted this would happen: the new paradigm masks itself as 'science'.

[Anonymous No.5869384]

>>5859993
ma ma is a fish

[Anonymous No.5869386]

>>5869353
guess what retard, the world wouldn't exist without religion

[Anonymous No.5869389]

>>5861580
>>5862332
>>5862332
>>5861415
>>5861481
It's a little late, but:

Oh wow I am literally retarded. THEODOSIUS, not Diocletian, what the fuck.

[Anonymous No.5869392]

>>5869386
A more accurate term is - the world can't exist without religion. There will always be a bunch of people who are afraid of death and will make things up. Sadly, that will never disappear.

[Anonymous No.5869400]

>>5869378

That's what they all say. They also all say that their word is the right one and that the others are all wrong

[Anonymous No.5869407]

>>5859070
What makes you think that did not actually happen?

[Anonymous No.5869409]

>>5869392
Oh, but you, you're a tough guy. You're not afraid of death, or anything that will bring on death. You relish dancing on that line.

You're so brave. I wish we could all be clones of you.

[Anonymous No.5869417]

>>5869409

You sound rather asshurt

[Anonymous No.5869453]

>>5869392
>>5869409
Are you sure he's not saying that it's sad that we're born with both the inevitable fate of dying and the ability to comprehend this fact.