Reconstructing Christianity, a first draft sort of thing

[Anonymous No.21652780]

So,
There was first Reformed Judaism for Jews; this was/is the only legitimate Christianity in my opinion, contrived from Paul and (obviously) Jesus where the ethos of the two Men and their two groups of followers are entirely directed at their fellow Jews to save them from: primitive evil backwards theocratic rule by corrupt priests. In this legitimate Christianity the holy books are completely discarded as being a product of evil theocracy; Jesus physically assaults priests and trashes one of their church buildings, Jesus as an Atheist essentially. Paul is driven mad by his own crimes in the employ of the priests; coming to recognize them as completely heinous influences, and goes on a pilgrimage to speak with the Jewish enclaves across the Roman Empire to try to convince them to follow Jesus.

logos,
1) Romans (non-Jews) are already more Virtuous than even the best of the Jews or Christians; Jews should strive to be as a good as they are / Jesus and Paul
2) Priests are all corrupt and are not to be taken seriously: Priests use the name of God to legitimize their evil actions. / Jesus and Paul
3) It's "okay" to let a person carry on believing in their stupid religion so long as they stop doing the bad things; genital mutilation, etc. / Paul

ethos,
1) we must save the Jews from Jewish Theology to stop the cycle of false guilt and genital mutilation being carried out by evil priests

Then there was Constantines "Christianity", which is far more difficult to assess... it seems to begin and end, insofar as I can deduce (on his part), with the Edict of Tolerance which stated that Christians are "okay" to enter life as a public servant and have equal opportunity in the Cursus Honororum as any other citizen. The 'Christianity' prior to this, however, i widely open to speculation: I think it is easily possible that the secular reader of the 250 yrs before this time would have recognized Jesus, correctly, as a "speaker of Logos" 'to' "the Jews", whilst the non-secular reader (i.e. a Jew) would not have needed to elevate Jesus to the status of 'God' and would not have needed to "still be Jewish", i.e. to carry on in a theocracy, either. Constantines Christianity is ...essentially... the only legitimate 'source' for Christendom as a "political thing" and Christianity 'before' it became Reformed Judaism for Non-Jews (which is a non-sequitur).

logos,
1) Former Jews are "okay"

ethos
1) we don't need to agree with their religion in order to have them work for us

[Anonymous No.21652799]

of course, this,
>3) It's "okay" to let a person carry on believing in their stupid religion so long as they stop doing the bad things; genital mutilation, etc. / Paul
would prove to be a problem as the religion didn't go away but got worse.

[Anonymous No.21652830]

Jesus's Christianity already differs a lot from Paul's Christianity.
Its hard to even call Jesus's Christianity "Christianity" because it was essentially an esoteric (as opposed to "reformed") Judaism that Jesus produced through his contemplative genius (explaining the Law to teachers at 12), his spiritual experiences (overcoming Satan in the wilderness) and the fruit of his reflective meditation on the Jewish tradition. At this point its not separate from Judaism per se, which is why we have things like Peter still considering himself a Jew in Acts.
When we get to Pauline Christianity there's already a difference in thought compared to Jesus. Paul is building out a theology with Jesus as the central figure and is clearly beginning to organize a new religion. At a certain point, I'd argue Paul saw himself as doing something other than Judaism, he called it "the Way" but this can be seen in many dramatic changes like Paul totally discarding the Law, Paul preaching to the Gentiles and stressing the tradition's universal character, and Paul rebuking the notion of any distinction between Jew and Gentile.

[Anonymous No.21652868]

>>21652830
ah good comments,

>Its hard to even call Jesus's Christianity "Christianity" because it was essentially an esoteric
There's certainly more to be said of the Atheism of Jesus in his personal acts - I don't mean "non-belief of gods, holy stuff" but just "anti theist", as he was fighting priests at every step of the way and working to undo the problems caused by priests in a theocracy.

>Paul is building out a theology with Jesus as the central figure
Well, exactly, "if the truth/god/whatever is furthered by my lie," and that's where the problems begin with Paul. I think he was sincere in his aims though, but... it's difficult to say whether we'd even know about Jesus or Paul if not for Pauls little pilgrimage, and obviously we have hindsight.

Also the charge against Christians, when the Romans began to notice them, was that of Atheism in that they had no real purpose or duties to perform and had rejected their local God and had not become proper Romans or 'better' as a consequence of discarding their local God. They rejected military service, obstinately refused to promise not to overthrow the government, etc. I don't know whether this should be connected to the 'atheism' of Jesus (who was very pro-roman) or just a comment on later christians being obstinate, but it's 'a' connection.

>Paul
It's a real shame we don't have the court transcripts from Pauls last trial, like we do when he met Pontius and Herod. In fact, that we don't have any record of what was said there is almost evidence in and of itself that Paul confessed to fibbing and plead that he was trying to do good all along.

[Anonymous No.21652895]

>>21652868
Yeah you're onto something but some details might be of service to you for a more nuanced picture.
>Jesus fighting priests
In my view, Jesus is an esoterist first and foremost. He is against primarily the Pharisaic priesthood because they're extreme legalists, which is what his position has transcended (example, he moves the Law from action to the state of the heart, or center of the being, in his teachings, which is misunderstood as abolishing the Law, when really he's transposing it to a higher level) and this can be seen in that one encounter with another rabbi who agrees with Jesus's esoteric take, leading to Jesus saying the rabbi is not far from God.
Jesus also didn't seem to take issue with the Sadducees as much and just teased them over their different doctrines.
>Roman complaints on Christians
Interesting stuff ngl I haven't looked into this aspect very much. Appreciate your informative views on this. I see this as a Semitic / Aryan misunderstanding/clash but that's really big picture.
>Paul
Its worth noting, along what you are already thinking, that Paul displays cunning whereas Jesus does not, or not as much.
For example, Jesus saying nothing at his trial or just "you have said it" while Paul sets the Pharisees and Sadducees against each other at his.

[Anonymous No.21652944]

>>21652895
>>Roman complaints on Christians
>Interesting stuff ngl I haven't looked into this aspect very much
ah try Lucien of Samosata "proteus peregrinus" and the character type, presumed or witnessed at the time, who ended up becoming leaders of such groups of persons.

I think proteus is fictional myself is meant to be a cautionary tale, but lucien is very near contemporary and mentions the christians outright and that proteus was their leader and wrote their laws.

Matial in his epigrams (writing under titus, domitian, then nerva and trajan) mentions jewish con-artists in the streets taking advantage of simpleminded people with beggary, and this has to be the earliest mention of "jews-christians" in their earliest activities as 2nd generation christians - around 80AD - as actual Jews wouldn't be proselytizing in the streets.

[Anonymous No.21652965]

>>21652895
>(example, he moves the Law from action to the state of the heart, or center of the being, in his teachings, which is misunderstood as abolishing the Law, when really he's transposing it to a higher level)
Well, yes, in the sense that "there is something to this (i.e. original ideas of the religion)" but that "whatever there might be to this is not being helped by you priests", but if we reach that point; coming from theocracy to non-theocracy, whilst still revering science/world etc., then that's atheism not esotericism;

I mean, the cardinal point to understand for the early christians - i mean jesus and the original followers - was to break out of abramic theocracy and all it's inherited errors, this act is no different to any person inheriting any religion, following it blindly, then realize that they were following some stupid things without having thought ti through properly; hence the priests opposed such things as their power was derived from people having no thought it through properly - i.e. elevating themselves above actual God/Truth.

>that one encounter with another rabbi who agrees with Jesus's esoteric take, leading to Jesus saying the rabbi is not far from God.
Metaphor and allegory are useful ways to convey something, sure, but in those examples you have to look for the direct meaning or consequence being conveyed and not just end with the notion of the allegory itself as being more important than the actual instruction or message; the context itself.

[Anonymous No.21652971]

>Matial*
*Marcus Valerius Martialis, that is.

[Anonymous No.21653039]

>>21652944
Thank you for the recs and information will definitely check these out
>>21652965
I do disagree here, Jesus was anti-Pharisee, not anti priest (he was after all a rabbi himself, meaning he was a formal religious authority).
Jesus also maintains the Abraham tradition but he moves it from a Work perspective to a Love perspective. He most certainly was an esoterist. All of his teachings take the form of esoteric commentary on Judaism.
I get that by "atheism" you mean "anti priesthood", but Jesus wasn't against the concept of a priesthood in general. Again, he didn't really seem to have much beef with the Sadducees. He was really specifically anti Pharisee.

[Anonymous No.21653742]

Source for all this schizo bs ?

[Anonymous No.21653769]

>>21652780
Christian theology is such a fucking mess. I might as well create my own religion.

[Anonymous No.21653806]

>>21653769
That's basically what the pseuds ITT are doing, trying to make Christianity as much of a "Roman" religion as possible when it is mainly a hellenized Judaism made possible by the collapse of the Hasmonean state, which itself was a revolt against Hellenization. The Romans had their own religion and this wasn't it.

[Anonymous No.21654655]

>>21653806
Not sure why you're personalizing this so much, this:
> trying to make Christianity as much of a "Roman" religion as possible
was the intention of Jesus and Paul, quite obviously. That is: to assimilate the Jews, perhaps, whilst praising the Romans at every opportunity.

[Anonymous No.21654660]

oh sick, a schizo thread

[Anonymous No.21654671]

>>21652780
Interesting thread.
Bump.

[Anonymous No.21654676]

Join De Monarchia to discuss about literature, philosophy, religion, poetry and other related subjects....

https://discord.gg/gjPgBr3x

[Anonymous No.21654677]

>>21653742
>source
uh.. the bible.

>>21653769
>Christian theology is such a fucking mess.
It makes sense 'for' Jews who are sick of Judaism, but it's a non-seq for a non-jew. You don't need saving from being manipulated in a primitive abramic theocracy, do you? Oh,well, maybe you do now... but you wouldnt have at the time.

[Anonymous No.21654690]

>>21652780
DONT FORget the jelly fish theory

[Anonymous No.21654691]

>>21654655
>praising the Romans at every opportunity
if you're correct about the first generation of christers then this ethos must have collapsed immediately because it isn't long before you have their heirs goading the Romans into executing them as part of a bdsm/martyrdom fetish which they detail extensively

[Anonymous No.21654741]

>>21654691
>if you're correct about the first generation of christers then this ethos must have collapsed immediately because it isn't long before
That's the thing isn't it, Paul and Jesus both praise the Romans and then after that 'first generation' there's the persecution claims.

It doesn't make a lot of sense, but there it is. Either, you could say that the stories and verses praising the Romans were just fake or that the persecution stories were fake - both made up much much later - orrrrr the 'persecuted' were just written as if they were Christians and their reasons and lives had nothing to do with Christianity. Rejecting military service wen your prophet/god tells you to obey the Roman Soldier; praising his command of his troops and his slaves, doesn't make a lot of sense as being a pretext to reject military service in the name of your prophet/god.

>> (the Roman soldier said) I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”

>> When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel!

According to a Catholic pal of mine a bit of this story is repeated in every mass.

[Anonymous No.21654747]

>>21654690
I'll NEVER FORGET

[Anonymous No.21654793]

>>21654691
>>21653039
I mean, this: >>21654741 is why it makes more sense as an anti-theocratic movement; which is why I called it Atheist. They're appealing 'to' the Romans to save them and their people from the evil rule of evil abramic priests (or rabbi, if you will).

It seems to confound people, understandably so lol, to consider the Christians actually as Jewish Atheists and as being moreso anti-church rather than anti-state.

Still, the word they used for church was 'assembly' which has meaning in Roman Law (an assembly of a people warrant having a tribune to speak to Emperors and Senators on behalf of that people, etc., to give assembly rights, etc. etc.).

[Anonymous No.21654796]

>assembly
that is: ecclesia, which then became basilica (a secular government building), when then became church.

[Anonymous No.21654798]

>>21654741
I think the quote you've supplied is more of a didactic through ethnography (very much at home in Greek literature on foreign peoples) than it is a call for the listener to literally adopt Roman culture. Consider what is being praised here—obediance. Even the hated Roman oppressor is of a superior character by merit of following orders. How much better would you, the audience be, if you would follow Jesus the way a Roman soldier follows his officers? And if this lesson was taken to heart by the little community then it is no wonder they so obstinately refused to have foreign gods before theirs, and refused to light some incense for the deified Roman conquerors. For it is not Caesar's place to declare himself god so this cannot be rendered unto him by one who has taken Jesus as his commanding officer

[Anonymous No.21654855]

>>21654798
That's clever, but... it's not just the physical actions of following orders; it's that the chain of command is intelligent and has good characters in it from the top down. The Romans, at the time, weren't in charge because they blindly obeyed foolish priests as the Jews had suffered with but because they had an open-minded philosophical outlook rather than a close-minded theocratic outlook.

The point of appeal I mentioned (proven by Paul directly btw) was part of the inferior status of the priests and their claims at being in charge of things, as their laws only held sway over their own people and had no bearing on a Roman Citizen - hence Paul was able to evade a Jewish court and a Jewish mob by appealing first to the Roman Governor and then to the Emperor himself, as was his right as a Citizen.

It's that point of culture which Jesus and Paul, or any Jew, couldn't help but notice; their religion was nothing at all in reality, despite the violence of their priests, and this was proven to them everyday. It's more likely that assimilation to superior culture was in mind than to make-up some other petty primitive religion.

But if this is true then it's strange that the Emperor or the Governor wouldn't have simply made Jesus a Tribune - unless at that point Jesus or Paul only spoke for six persons within the province and so would've held no value for the Romans.

[Anonymous No.21654918]

>>21654855
>It's more likely that assimilation to superior culture was in mind than to make-up some other petty primitive religion.
If you are seeking to provide a historical origination for Christianity you cannot ignore the fact that the whole Mediterranean was filled with made-up petty primitive religions. And the one that provoked the Romans into executing its adherents was not trying to emulate Romans but to spite them and escape from them. The Hasmoneans had thrown off the Greeks only to have them replaced with Romans, who were even less accommodating to their religion. A stateless priesthood—that is what the Pharisees became. Anyone could challenge their authority—how much more effective this challenge would be if the challenger were better at "fighting" the Romans? Those who fought them militarily in a series of revolts did not become Christians and never could because they were renewing their ethnic conflict against the Egyptians and Greeks. Those who fought them by means of this new universalizing bdsm method, did become Christians. You can't broker a truce with the suicidal and there was no shortage of discontent with Rome among the conquered, and so the Christians became the plurality and then the majority through a relentless march against all Roman institutions from the governors' palaces to the heathen temples.

[Anonymous No.21655009]

>>21654918
>you cannot ignore the fact that the whole Mediterranean was filled with made-up petty primitive religions
well there was a difference between universalist polytheism (where you go from place to place and discover most people have the same gods as you) and crazed racial monotheism.. but that's another topic entirely

Still I don't know whether the anti-state is accurate at all; if we call Constantine the 3rd generation rather than the 2nd, then the 3rd generation - virtually as soon as he dies - is an elitist state religion which is immediately employed for hunting down real world politicians using religion as an excuse... so at no point is there anything anti-state going on there as it's the weapon of the state bureaucracy .... the '2nd' generation even claims this bureaucracy as being their own... hypothetically if there was at some point an anti-state element going on, then when did it occur? The Christians claim no part in the Jewish-Roman Wars, for example, which would've been tens of anti-state nationalist rebellions against the state if it existed anywhere at all. A Jesus figure, or a Paul, then, who was favorable to Romans would've been seen as the biggest traitor by the Jews who were anti-state in their mentality. Even if the Christians were rejected by the Romans afterwards, followed by the big final Jewish Wars when the place was torn down once and for all...

If Christian-Jews 'did' spread in the manner you describe then it would've occurred post-hadrians war, I suppose, but even then it's a paradox as they're found to be imperial servants at that point.

[Anonymous No.21655036]

>>21655009
>a paradox as they're found to be imperial servants at that point
they were not a monolithic group, but if we are investigating their roots it is hard to avoid this origin among a people conquered several times over, whose religion's legitimacy was increasingly imperiled and thus susceptible to internal and external intellectual and social critique, and who had a tradition centuries old of resisting foreign religious practices and beliefs. These crystalize in the Christian, who fights by means of being beaten (whether he is executed to get his reward now or has fashioned himself into one of your "imperial servants" so he may evangelize more covertly) and also resents all the religious practices of his neighbors and rulers. They adapted to the lack of the Hasmonean state and once the cult had captured the emperor, they could return to statism, just as the Hasmoneans had in destroying pagan sites in their territory, e.g. Hellenistic temples and gymnasia, and forcing conversions, e.g. the Idumaeans, after driving out the Seleucid kings.

[Anonymous No.21655057]

>>21655009
There were both Jew and Gentiles who were Christians as we see in the book of Acts. Simply by the fact there were more non-Jews at the time would tend to indicate that the number of Christians would become majority non-Jews over time. This is especially true after the destruction of the temple in 70 and the Bar Kokhba revolt in the 130s, since the main place where the remnants of Pharisaism (one of the main factions of Jews that opposed Christianity) were mostly relocated to Babylon after the destruction of Jerusalem.

On a side note, these became the spiritual predecessors of Judaism, that is, talmudic Judaism, although that religion wasn't fully codified until late in the 5th century. Large numbers of them didn't come to Europe until later, and many of them were non-Jewish converts to the talmudic doctrine, even if they claimed to be "Jews."

>so at no point is there anything anti-state going on there
Well yeah, obviously. Because you're talking about Constantine's state church. That is just one faction. There was still another noteworthy faction of churches which were entirely opposed to Constantine, namely the Donatists, and probably lots of unnamed others as well.

[Anonymous No.21655093]

>>21652780
>this was/is the only legitimate Christianity in my opinion
dropped and lol'd

[Anonymous No.21655101]

>>21652780
>Paul and (obviously) Jesus where the ethos of the two Men and their two groups of followers are entirely directed at their fellow Jews
Dude. St. Paul says he's an Apostle to gentiles... oh my goodness.
>primitive evil backwards theocratic rule by corrupt priests
This is a bad crossword puzzle clue and I'm being nice.
>Jesus physically assaults priests and trashes one of their church buildings, Jesus as an Atheist essentially.
>physically assaults
You seem like the type of person to file a police report if a bum hits him. Lmao
>Romans (non-Jews) are already more Virtuous than even the best of the Jews or Christians
This is the funniest post on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.21655114]

>>21652830
>When we get to Pauline Christianity there's already a difference in thought compared to Jesus.
First of all - it's St. Paul. Second of all, beyond your initial post, which was genuinelly a gang rape of underage words by underevolved rapists, St. Paul does indeed expound a religion that is essentially the same but operates differently because he is part of those in the line of the Apostles to have the Holy Spirit. Basically, you do not accept the Holy Spirit and thus reject St. Paul's teachings.

[Anonymous No.21655122]

>>21654918
>human thoughts are Netownian physics problems bounded by the law of conservation of energy
Honestly at this point it's like slicing microwaved butter

[Anonymous No.21655123]

>>21655114
>Basically, you do not accept the Holy Spirit
Yes that's the general theme of textual criticism and historical explanations for Christianity, that "God did it" is a poor explanation for those of us who can wipe ourselves

[Anonymous No.21655124]

>Reformed Judaism for Jews; this was/is the only legitimate Christianity

jesus explicitly states that a gentiles faith is valid and he will inherit the kingdom of god while many of israel wont, so unfortunately you were wrong in the first sentence and wrote this all out for nothing

[Anonymous No.21655134]

>>21655122
>slicing microwaved butter
Is from one of the martyr hagiographies? First they take the believer and put him in a cauldron, which of course is rotated by whipping captives who spin it over a fire... And then a legionary comes with his sword and... Oh it's too terrible, but it is exactly what happened. And then the entire city converted that day. Saint Hyperbolon the Confessor said so in his book Fuck You Dad and Other Conversion Stories

[Anonymous No.21655137]

>>21655123
>Yes
Jesus Christ mentions this.
>that's the general theme of textual criticism
I wouldn't call this textual nor critical.
>and historical explanations
If history is lies and explainations is believing those then yes.
>for Christianity,
lol
> that "God did it" is a poor explanation
It's actually a great explaination. In fact, look into Shamanism, Mayan astrology, Buddhist meditation, Platonic dialpgues, Greek dramas, and really any domain where humans have excelled and you will find that God is the how and the why.
>for those of us who can wipe ourselves
Babies are dumb amirite

[Anonymous No.21655138]

>>21655134
>Saint Hyperbolon the Confessor said so in his book Fuck You Dad and Other Conversion Stories
This reads like what it is - a shattered mirror of emptiness squealing at the truth.

[Anonymous No.21655158]

>>21655036
>it is hard to avoid this origin among a people conquered several times over, whose religion's legitimacy was increasingly imperiled
I would say that's one of the most evident arguments for a Jew to shrug off the entire religion, as Jesus and Paul did. Obviously it was a cascade of failure stemming from a number of foundational falsehoods and absurdist traditions, as well s the blind following 'of' those absurdist traditions,
"we have inherited lies" as Paul said, and "pay no heed to jewish fables" ... and that is all of Abramism.

Disconnected from that comprehension, i.e. from a Jew who would have gone with Jesus, is the later convert in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation who is back in a synagogue and listening to a priest again. Without that comprehension there is nothing to speak of in the aim of a late gen Christian, except paradise in death according to a theology, if the aim of a first gen Christian was in the first place emancipation from a backward theocracy.

I can see how it would've just fell back into old habits of it own accord though, I don't mean to suggest anything deliberate about the return to priests and church buildings.

>>21655057
>There were both Jew and Gentiles who were Christians
I disagree, the few sparse mentions of "also this could work for you non-jews as well" are so rare as to suggest nothing at all of any importance; whilst overt mentions of "stay way from non-jews" are said by Jesus etc., and the purpose of salvation through Jesus is a non-sequitur for a person at that time who wasn't subject to Abramic theocracy: the point about not cutting up your sons penis, for instance (as well as the other inherited absurdisms), wasn't something anybody else was doing or would have taken seriously to needed to be "saved" from. These were Jews talking to Jews, evidently.

>destruction of the temple
Sure, but then we're looking at a diaspora. It's about 20 yrs after 70AD when Martial mentions the Jewish preachers in the streets of Rome taking advantage of the simpleminded.

> Constantine's state church
Technically, yes, but they claim a lineage of administrators - presumably with some authority in some manner - going back to Peter. Even if these are fake we still have examples of Christians in state employment, especially in North Africa, going back nominally to the year 100AD who the state church claimed as their own; quite in fact having to claim them as their own to present the appearance of an unbroken lineage.... but..... we i think already know that it was full of lies lol

[Anonymous No.21655168]

>>21655137
>>21655138
Do either of you have anything to do here other than engage in a play-pretend martyrdom reenactment in which you present your beliefs as naively as possible to an opponent and hope he smacks you? I am aware you believe your beliefs are true and all critics are just liars and moral derelicts. But if you are only interested in giving these obnoxious testimonials where you repeatedly self-affirm how true you are then I have already given you the best I can do as a response—I cannot lance you with anything more than words. May they earn you your reward

[Anonymous No.21655171]

>>21655158
>entire religion
The core flaw of you analysis is that the shrugged it off entirely. They shrugged off the old convenant as that was based in law and reified the new convenant in grace. To say that those comments are indicative of invalidating everything in Judaism is to ignore Christ's comments about prophets, Him citing Scripture, and St. Paul citing Scripture. It's a cute lie but a lie and oversimplification to make the whole religion look, again, like a pseudo geneological organism rather than divine. In fact, you cannot explain the insular and longlasting Jew and the universal and longlasting Catholic without both convenants being true.

[Anonymous No.21655176]

>>21655168
>play-pretend martyrdom reenactment
Wrong.
> in which you present your beliefs as naively as possible to an opponent and hope he smacks you?
It's so easy to do. Why?
> I am aware you believe your beliefs are true and all critics are just liars and moral derelicts.
Yes.
>But if you are only interested in giving these obnoxious testimonials where you repeatedly self-affirm how true you are then I have already given you the best I can do as a response—I cannot lance you with anything more than words.
>implies violence
Satanic slaves are so easy.
> May they earn you your reward
I'm so scared. Everything will burn but what I believe and if I am wrong them I will rejoice in my correction.

[Anonymous No.21655179]

>>21655158
>the aim of a first gen Christian was in the first place emancipation from a backward theocracy
that's a different anon but I would sugfest that is a partial explanation paired with the Nietzschean reading of a ressentiment against Rome, along with a historically longer tradition of obstinate opposition to foreign religion to the point of violence

[Anonymous No.21655180]

>>21655158
>the point about not cutting up your sons penis, for instance (as well as the other inherited absurdisms), wasn't something anybody else was doing or would have taken seriously to needed to be "saved" from
Disproven by Islam

[Anonymous No.21655187]

>>21655176
Even now you continue to troll for an exasperated response. But your methods are now known and have been inoculated against by those who aspire to a higher type

[Anonymous No.21655190]

>>21655187
>exasperated response. But your methods are now known and have been inoculated against by those who aspire to a higher type
It's just such a gift from Christ to see you slaves always point to the higher, truer, profounder, or what have you but if you were to articulate it I could sell tickets to as a comedy show.

[Anonymous No.21655199]

jOKE pOSTs: responses too silly to be taken seriously

>>21655093
Well, that's a shame. If we can't solve this problem and get you to agree with it today, then the society of the future will be forced to kill lots and lots of religious people. I only arrived at this topic due to the sheer horror of discovering the dark void in the mind of the Christcuck; a baseless cult of inherited errors knotted and twisted over vice upon vice.

>>21655101
The worst part of this is that you're surely a Christian and yet you're ignoring the context and mission of Jesus, and laughing to be told about the people who killed him, because I pointed out that they were Priests.

This proves that your type is more interested in promulgation of your own cult than you are about the god that you claim to believe in. Pure nihilism, a disgusting character of abject vice. Into the arena with you.

>>21655124
>jesus explicitly states that a gentiles faith is valid and he will inherit the kingdom of god while many of israel wont, so unfortunately you were wrong
I'm sorry but I don't see how anything there makes 'me' wrong? Jesus states that a gentiles faith is valid, see him praise the Romans for their faith (fides; a roman virtue) in having an organized military state; not for them having faith in the talking-goats of abramism - or whatever jewish fables are in your head that forms your faith.

>>21655134
Hahahahaha that's pretty good

hey what it is with aggrandized persecution stories? It's almost like a certain group are fully aware that more power comes from pretending to be hard-done-by than by great and good deeds. RIP George Floyd.

>>21654690
Explain.

[Anonymous No.21655211]

>>21655199
"Forgive them Father: they can't sneed." From the Gospel according to Chuck, chapter 9 verse 11.

[Anonymous No.21655222]

>>21655199
>kill lots and lots of religious
>a baseless cult of inherited errors knotted and twisted over vice upon vice.
Do you not see it slave? Also, want to know how I know you are Jewish?

[Anonymous No.21655242]

>>21655158
>the few sparse mentions of "also this could work for you non-jews as well" are so rare as to suggest nothing at all of any importance;
It's all across the New Testament.
>whilst overt mentions of "stay way from non-jews" are said by Jesus etc.
Where?

>It's about 20 yrs after 70AD when Martial mentions the Jewish preachers in the streets of Rome taking advantage of the simpleminded.
There was another destruction of the city around AD 135, although one could argue that for most reasons the destruction of the temple in 70 was of greater significance. It's also interesting that it happens 40 years after the crucifixion, as time periods in multiples of 40 is a common Biblical theme.

>Technically, yes, but they claim a lineage of administrators - presumably with some authority in some manner - going back to Peter.
The muslims also claim to go back to Adam, Noah and Moses but they don't in reality. Get the point? Doesn't matter if their claims aren't true.
>Even if these are fake we still have examples of Christians in state employment, especially in North Africa, going back nominally to the year 100AD who the state church claimed as their own;
There is nothing against being an administrator or a soldier in the Bible, as long as you conduct yourself rightly. Paul explains this in Romans 13.
>to shrug off the entire religion, as Jesus and Paul did.
Jesus is God from the beginning, and He is the author and finisher of our faith. As it says in Hebrews 12:

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds."
(Hebrews 12:2-3)

>"we have inherited lies" as Paul said
Where does it say this? If this is a reference to 1 Peter 1:18, it goes without saying that it's a reference to false, manmade tradition such as that of the Pharisees. Anyone who reads the verse can see that.

[Anonymous No.21655267]

>>21655199
>I'm sorry but I don't see how anything there makes 'me' wrong?
Christianity was never "reformed Judaism for jews" and the teachings of Christ himself prove this

>see him praise the Romans for their faith (fides; a roman virtue) in having an organized military state


more like see him praise a roman for his faith in the Christ as the son of God. Christianity has always been open to everyone for as long as there has been a Christ

[Anonymous No.21655289]

>>21655222
>worships one of them as god himself but buries this in copes
>scours for them in Early Life sections to confirm their involvement in cultural social economic things he hates
is that a christer i smell?

[Anonymous No.21655293]

>>21655180
>Islam
That's off-topic entirely. Wait for another day. I'll give you the truth about that in good time.

>>21655179
>, along with a historically longer tradition of obstinate opposition to foreign religion to the point of violence
I think that is true but that it would've been Jesus and Paul who represented the move away from that; for the reasoning given. Being a vassal state misruled by crazy priests, having rebellion after rebellion led by those priests and seeing your people butchered over and over again - and no God coming to help you, this really fucking ruins the claims of that religion as being true in any of its claims.

This context is very important: the Romans themselves had done this only two centuries earlier when they banned human sacrifice under the pretext of omens. The Romans had embraced universalism via polytheism and made great successes, but the Jews with a racial supremacist theocracy were incapable of this without getting rid of their entire religion.

>>21655171
>The core flaw of you analysis is that the shrugged it off entirely.
Well, I hope I've explained it better (see above) in the last post.

>To say that those comments are indicative of invalidating everything in Judaism is to ignore Christ's comments about prophets, Him citing Scripture, and St. Paul citing Scripture.
Well, I agree with you. Jesus I think certainly was happy to ignore the corrupt priests and dismiss the 'laws' he didn't think made sense, so we can understand his perspective there, whereas Paul admits that he tells lies, so we can understand his perspective there lol

From my perspective Jesus is the "speaker of logos (i.e. philosophical reasoning to truth)" 'to' the Jews in the cultural language 'of' the Jews, so he couldn't not mention bits of the religion. Paul I think took it further and made mistakes; the massive contradictions between them both, for instance, shows that Paul was.. ehh.. thinking he was doing right but obviously making it up as he went along, telling the audiences of Jews what he thought they wanted to hear rather than what they needed to hear.

> In fact, you cannot explain the insular and longlasting Jew and the universal and longlasting Catholic without both convenants being true.
Sure you can; one is a non-sequitur which has nothing for a non-jew, the other is the old religion of a jew prior to the reformed version. Jews also had special status amongst the christians for centuries, before they didn't. So there were plenty of reasons for, e.g. a steppe dweller to reject both catholicism and orthodoxy and embrace judaism instead. But this point wouldn't even exist in jesus's own day... certainly the centuries where christians began to force conversion onto people created and then entrenched those differences out of mutual spite.

Ultimately though Abramism is an alien and primitive mentality, long surpassed in every single way; it represents a regression to infantilism (Pharisee rule).

[Anonymous No.21655347]

J0K3 p05TS No.2 contd. >>21655199

>>21655222
>Do you not see it slave? Also, want to know how I know you are Jewish?
How am I a Jew if I'm telling you that Abramism is a primitive and backwards thing? That means Judaism included, you dumb barbarian from the frozen wastelands of the black north.

Want to know why you regress into blaming Jews when things go wrong in your society? It's because your religion is literally Jewish Supremacy for Gentiles, and you know it yet you can't rise above it and simply declare it to be absurd: so you cannot extricate your brain from Jewish Ethnos your religion has bound you to it, which you refuse to admit that it has, so you're stuck in a loop of blaming the Jews and loving the Jews, it's pathetic.

>>21655211
hahahaha

>>21655267
Holy jesus buddy, I quoted the bible already and now you're just being stupid and obstinate. Your sophistry is so bad it's like I'm watching a drug addict pastor on grain American TV from the late 80's,
>>see him praise the Romans for their faith (fides; a roman virtue) in having an organized military state
>more like see him praise a roman for his faith in the Christ as the son of God.
YOU SURE SHOWED ME

>>21655187
Fuck that guy, and this is entirely true.

[Anonymous No.21655373]

>>21655293
>The Romans had embraced universalism via polytheism and made great successes
The Romans replacing the Seleucids (and even the mainland Greeks) as the champions of hellenism is something taken for granted but really underappreciated. Roman "polytheism" is well in advance of that.

[Anonymous No.21655406]

>>21655242
>>whilst overt mentions of "stay way from non-jews" are said by Jesus etc.
>Where?
"go nowhere near the gentiles,"

>>the few sparse mentions of "also this could work for you non-jews as well" are so rare as to suggest nothing at all of any importance;
>It's all across the New Testament.
It's not though. Paul says it once (i hope you're not going to start in with that "god of everyone" crap; it's still a jew saying it to other jews), Jesus says don't do it at all.

>40
Yeah that's about the rate for most wars; about the same time it takes for a generation of noobs to be born who aren't able to have witnessed horrible mass deaths to know better than to start a war.

>Jesus is God
according to Paul.

hold on, that's not even what it says in that quote (though Paul does say it),
>>"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;
accurate; reformed judaism to save the jews from evil jewish priests and evil jewish customs: fides is recognized here as discipline and self-control (i.e. to know better),
>>who for the joy that was set before him
accurate, he did this because, like Cato to the Romans, he cared for his people,
>>endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
accurate; as it's Jesus's "way" which a reformed jew follows instead of following the priest (although technically to put anyone before god is idolatry.. but whatever)
>>For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds."
accurate.
>>(Hebrews 12:2-3)

> it goes without saying that it's a reference to false, manmade tradition such as that of the Pharisees.
Of course it is. Now, what else can be regarded as a false man-made tradition? Do we take Eden as if it were literal or as if it were allegorical? How we can take it becomes a man-made tradition. Clearly it was not just 'what' the Pharisees 'said' but how they thought and how they ruled that was the root of their problems. I don't know how anybody can not put this together and spot the Pharisee mentality of the later Churches; enforcing silly dogmas for political gains and killing anyone they could get their hands on whilst claiming they were doing it 'for' god.

I remembered the first controversy that William Tyndale caused in the first of the Bible into English; to not call 'the church' a Church but to use the original Greek and to call it an 'assembly' or community. There is a big difference between one and the other; the original word has no priests giving orders to anybody.

[Anonymous No.21655458]

>>21655406
>"go nowhere near the gentiles,"
I see in Mark 16 where it says, "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
>hold on, that's not even what it says in that quote (though Paul does say it),
Yes it actually does. If He is the author of our faith, then He is the one who wrote it.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
(Second Timothy 3:16)

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
(Second Peter 1:21)

>Do we take Eden as if it were literal or as if it were allegorical?
Literal because that's how the Bible presents it. Our Lord and Savior even refers to it literally in the New Testament. Like it says in Mark, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." (Mark 10:6)
>Clearly it was not just 'what' the Pharisees 'said' but how they thought and how they ruled that was the root of their problems.
Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:7-13.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

And this is obviously the lies referred to by Paul as well. Not the same thing as God's commandment, IOW. In fact, their manmade tradition contradicted the observance of God's law in the written word. So it is today with those who ignore the word of God in the Holy Bible.

>I don't know how anybody can not put this together and spot the Pharisee mentality of the later Churches; enforcing silly dogmas for political gains and killing anyone they could get their hands on
You're talking about the state church and Catholicism, which is a counterfeit, as they do not follow the Bible at all. Anyone with their eyes open can see this.
>to not call 'the church' a Church but to use the original Greek and to call it an 'assembly' or community. There is a big difference between one and the other; the original word has no priests giving orders to anybody.
I don't see that much of a difference. A church is a specific kind of assembly: "Ἐκκλησία" meaning 1) "any public assembly, a congregation," but also, 2) "a called out assembly, a Christian assembly, a church."

[Anonymous No.21655462]

>>21652780
This bust is so fucking weird to me man lol. It's so ugly.

[Anonymous No.21655513]

>>21655462
it was the product of a literally degenerating culture, lost the art of making lifelike sculpture

[Anonymous No.21655705]

>>21654676
I got banned for supporting trans and another guy got banned for talking about money

10/10 Discord

[Anonymous No.21655814]

>>21655462
>>21655513
it's the western archetype; the huge jawline buzz lightyear, manga, it's everywhere desu, rather: the average westerner doesn't resemble it.

>>21655458
>If He is the author of our faith, then He is the one who wrote it.
ehhhhh but you're doing that vague conflation thing; merging things together to string up Jesus/God/He/Faith .. which comes to back to Pauls claim and those dubious unknown authored edited texts introduced afterwards,

But here, Jesus says as much,
>>"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
>>Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

>In fact, their manmade tradition contradicted the observance of God's law in the written word. So it is today with those who ignore the word of God in the Holy Bible.
The concept 'of' religion is man-made, that's the thing entirely; rather: to proclaim a book is superior instruction of "things divine" than actual study of things in reality. Follow the thought to where it goes; things that are man-made: religions, titles, etc.

There is of the man-made the baseless fantaies of religion, which are less and less correct as more knowledge is discovered and so which cannot be 'true' of 'god', and they are obviously man-made stories which reinforce a certain enmity in the thoughts of men (especially this religion), etc. ... and then there is reality, of which a religious person 'claims' to believe is holy/divine but which the religious person ignore/rejects in favor of the man-made religion, which (in the case of this religion) often produces a nihilistic character (eager for death, disinterested in the world). The point made here, I think, to a Christian is the same point that Jesus, I think, was making to the Jews of his day.

i.e.
>those who ignore the word of God in the Holy Bible.
it's more the case, as with the Pharisees, that they ignore everything else except the words in the 'bible/s' because they use them to justify their criminality; it's the same today with a certain type of person who just wants to excuse their own petty vice - or outright evil.

Quite literally the same. And, bear in mind, Jesus nor Paul ever held up a book and told anyone it was Gods Words as the bible didn't exist.

>I don't see that much of a difference. A church is a specific kind of assembly: "Ἐκκλησία"
I'm not sure where Church as a word came from, except that 'Churching' was a term for cleaning up a Woman after menstruation or childbirth or one or the other. The phonetic is "Gorg" or "Zorg", presumably German; though the nearest Latin is Circe; a Witch who turned men into pigs by removing their minds. Eh, anyway, where ever it came from as a physical building it was first, verbatim, ecclesia; meaning assembly, yes.

[Anonymous No.21655828]

>>21655814
>it's the western archetype
I guess if you make things up as you go along yeah you're totally right

[Anonymous No.21655833]

>>21655814
>ehhhhh but you're doing that vague conflation thing; merging things together to string up Jesus/God/He
The New Testament is filled with references to the deity of Jesus Christ. Philippians 2:6, Colossians 1:17, 1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV), the list goes on and on. Not to mention John 1:1, very famously, and in Revelation where He says that He is the Alpha and the Omega.

>which are less and less correct as more knowledge is discovered
The truth, which is God's word, never contradicts real knowledge. The danger is in being fed lies from the world and thinking they are true knowledge when they are not.

>And, bear in mind, Jesus nor Paul ever held up a book and told anyone it was Gods Words as the bible didn't exist.
Well, in Revelation it says in the very beginning, on the third verse, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand."

And Christ said in John 5:39, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

[Anonymous No.21655874]

>>21655293
>That's off-topic entirely. Wait for another day. I'll give you the truth about that in good time.
>religion is fake because it gets rid of circumcision for convert
>islam didn't
>irrelevant
Honestly it's easier than napping

[Anonymous No.21655881]

>>21655347
>How am I a Jew if I'm telling you that Abramism is a primitive and backwards thing?
>lie
>void
>lie
It doesn't matter. Judaism is a blood curse and your thoughts will follow an anti-Gospel pattern unless you repent and believe the Gospel. I suffered from the Free Masonic curse which had similar than much less sever symptoms.

[Anonymous No.21655885]

>>21655458
>Literal because that's how the Bible presents it.
Eden is a metaphor and should be read as duch.

[Anonymous No.21655892]

>>21655885
Jesus Christ teaches about Genesis and its events literally within the Gospels.

[Anonymous No.21656130]

D4RK J0KE PO5T5 No.3 : for the surreal

>>21655833
..but you're still doing the conflations.. i.. holy shit this is crazy..

Okay, do you not see that 'you' are now ignoring all reality in favor of a man-made book? You have no idea what is true and what is not about that book. Your faith is in something which is man-made; out of a sense of tradition.

oh my god this is depressing,
>The danger is in being fed lies from the world
> and thinking they are true knowledge when they are not.
all of reality, which you claim to believe was made by god, is now false and the man-made book is the only real thing, which is patently absurd in many of its fables which you know full well, and then anyway you proclaim it "never contradicts real knowledge".

absolutely disgusting

>>21655881
>Judaism is a blood curse and your thoughts will follow an anti-Gospel pattern unless you repent and believe the Gospel.
Honestly I half-agree; you guys have had your brains totally destroyed by jewish ethnos which has been given to you as if it were "western civilization", to the point that your rational mind is utterly subsumed by a foreign peoples racial supremacy/death cult.

The paradox here is so amazing: you hate jews whilst mindlessly enforcing 'their' cultural heritage and you don't seem to comprehend it, it's a terrifying spectacle of how low a human being can be brought down in ignorance; terrifying because of the massive dissonance involved in the thought process - it reminds me of a psychopath with a placid expression merrily hacking away at a screaming body... or... you are the walking dead, to put it that way; animated by dark magic.

>>21655874
It is off-topic as we're talking about early christianty, not the reaction to late stage christian abuses which prompted the loss of half of the roman empire to a band of camel bandits. Shit never would have happened in the good old days when we had real legions.

[Anonymous No.21656215]

>>21655892
please provide scripture showing him do this (he doesn't)

[Anonymous No.21656256]

>>21655892
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
- Matthew 19:4-6

And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.
32 Remember Lot's wife.
33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.
34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
- Luke 17:26-34

[Anonymous No.21656270]

>>21656130
>all of reality, which you claim to believe was made by god, is now false
Hardly, anon. It's just a fact that Jesus Christ is King, we're all part of His creation.

"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord:"
- Philippians 3:8

>which is patently absurd in many of its fables which you know full well
Like what?

[Anonymous No.21656312]

>>21656270
eesh you were talking to me that long just to finish up with this gibberish? I really despise the long-con trolls, it's a real sick breed of sociopathy.

Hey, not to worry, anonobon. I understand how low you've be brought to reach this point in your life. It doesn't matter that you were a child molester or a drunk or a heroin junkie or ran someone over in your car ... one day we'll all look back and laugh at the extremes that some humans will go to in order to avoid facing up to their crimes.

[Anonymous No.21656349]

>>21656312
No I won't give you my number.

[Anonymous No.21656918]

>>21652780
Good thread, have a bump so the discussion can continue

[Anonymous No.21657433]

>>21656918
>so the discussion can continue

Well... have kind of lost interest in this for now ...but I think we covered some good ground anyway,

So, revised version: >>21652780

First Generation : Reformed Judaism for Jews
(see: OP)

Second Generation/s : "The Mystery Years"
Roughly covering 70AD to 280AD,

A huge space of time which needs properly looking into; beginning from the first mention of "jewish-christians conning to the simpleminded" (marcus valerius martialis: epigrams 90AD, lucien of samosata, the death of peregrinus 150AD), this period would encompass the first 'honest' Christian Jews inspired by Jesus and Paul, the Roman philosophical take on Jesus, the continuance of the periodic Jewish-Roman wars (notably under Vespasian in 70: all jewish elite commit suicide, and then under Hadrian in 132: city itself destroyed and rebuilt w/ jews barred from entry) resulting in exodus-diasporas) .... jewish christian claims of persecutions during this time but romans didn't differentiate between jew and christian .... relative calm co-existence; roman philosophical view of jesus certainly exists amongst educated pagans (according to christian complaints) abramic god is equated or rationalized by some with platos monad/trinity, sudden massive problems with jewish christian and gentile conversos (some
of them wealthy romans) in late 3rd to early 4th century, pagan emperor diocletian creates the diocese system of provincial government, pagan emperor maximinus reconverts christian nuns to paganism as he tours the empire (according to christian complaints),

ethos : varied
logos : "we're not jews anymore, we are sophisticated platonists, but we still take judaism absolutely literally"

Early Three Hundreds (4th Cent.) : Constantines Edict of Tolerance (circa 324 to 337)
(see: OP)

Early to Middle Three Hundreds (4th Cent.) : Immediate Post-Constantine (circa 337 to 361)
Church as "Special" State-Religion / Religion used as excuse to oust other Christians and Non-Christians from political office

Covering the 24 years of time from the death of Constantine, the empire-wide abuses of the nominally "Christian" administrators and the public response to them, resulting in the deposing of the Christian culprits and burning to death of the main offenders (see: Paul the Chain) after the election of the pagan Emperor Iulianos (see: Julian the Apostate) who pledged to end their tyranny. Whilst this is a huge topic in and itself it's only worth mentioning in our context here to demonstrate the short space of time between the Edict of Tolerance and the massive public abuses carried out by the Christians - mostly against other Christians and openly using the religion as a political pretext to target secular officials.... Iulianos differentiates the Christians from the Jews at last, declaring the non-jewish jews to be Galileans (see: Contra Gal.)

ethos :
logos :

Late Three Hundreds:
Christian Admins return, allied barbarian troops outnumber proper legions..

[Anonymous No.21657524]

revisions contd.,
editum: for >>21657433 & >>21652780

Second Generation/s : "The Mystery Years"
Roughly covering 70AD to 280AD,

Also of note here is the similarity with the tolerant leaning romans (stoic, epicurean, etc.) to the more rational of the jewish-christians; i.e. the roman philosophical take, sometimes called gnostic/magi (see: 'the golden romans') who seemed to just be ordinary romans (tolerant, going to the theater, virtue in character, not preoccupied with self-flagellation) who tried to talk with the christians;

see: Irenaeus (from: "On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis") 180/210AD


Late Three Hundreds:
Christian Admins return,

It seems to be at this point that the literalistic abramic version wins out, due to the barbarians in the army where the religion is used to bind them with the romans and creates a simpleminded religion which politically cannot be questioned in educated depth for fear of losing control over the barbarians (see: foederati), the christians after this point occupy the roman office of economic management (procurate) whilst the barbarians slowly subsume and replace the military management (legate), massive military losses follow due to poor organization, barbarians adopt some roman military elective titles as royal hereditary titles (dux, count), empire begins to collapse.

notably though is that Roman Pagans and Roman Christians do co-exist politically, see: symmachos under christian emperor theodosius

[Anonymous No.21657527]

>legate*
i mean: propraetorate

[Anonymous No.21657565]

JOK3 P0STs No. 4 - forgive and forget

>>21656349
fffffffffffffffffffffffffucking christlaper, i already know your number, the number of the beast; yea doubtless.

>>21656256
>34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
fetishistic pornography

[Anonymous No.21657592]

>>21653769
>Christian theology is such a fucking mess.
t. Has never read any theology.

[Anonymous No.21657608]

>>21656270
Alright, so we took a turn for the worst this morning, but answer at least one thing I said in that previous post you replied to, here: >>21656130

Do you not see that 'you' are now ignoring all reality in favor of a man-made book? You have no idea what is true and what is not about that book. Your faith is in something which is man-made; out of a sense of tradition.

My point isn't that complicated, surely? You/they are doing here precisely what was told to you 'not' to do by Jesus and Paul; as in Titus and elsewhere, you are "paying heed to jewish fables" by elevating and idolating a book of fables (and the institutions which claim power from that book) 'above' that of the real world. This is where the problems begin for the gentile converso: if the mission of Jesus and Paul isn't udnerstood in its original context (never mind the book) as to what they wereoign and who they were fighting against, then there is nothing for the gentile converso to get out of the religion except a regress into jewsih fables whichleads them to the mentality of the Pharisees.

I made this point yesterday already, here: >>21655406

. Clearly it was not just 'what' the Pharisees 'said' but how they thought and how they ruled that was the root of their problems. I don't know how anybody can not put this together and spot the Pharisee mentality of the later Churches; enforcing silly dogmas for political gains and killing anyone they could get their hands on whilst claiming they were doing it 'for' god.

This, I would argue - and I would appreciate your thoughts - is the only end game for a non-jew who adopts judaism/christianity; it ends, in other words, with them recreating the persecution of Jesus over and over again, primarily because of idolating the pernicious jewish fables which lead them to that same mindset.

Serious thoughts about this, if you would. I don't believe this is beyond anyone powers of intellect to notice; I do recognize that it's the sense of traditionalism which prevents you/them from putting 2 and 2 together however..

[Anonymous No.21657619]

>>21652780
>In this legitimate Christianity the holy books are completely discarded as being a product of evil theocracy;
Jesus quoted scripture and the prophets all the time you absolute mongoloid.
>Jesus physically assaults priests and trashes one of their church buildings, Jesus as an Atheist essentially.
Why are you trying to substitute "priest" and "church" for "rabbi" and "temple"? He assaulted the money changers who set-up in the temple, not the actual clerics. Pharisee judaism wasn't even the same as the Israelite religion.

[Anonymous No.21657634]

>>21654676
This discord has all the disappointment you'd expect from pseuds desu.
It's also just a trial server where you have to "prove" you deserve to be among fart sniffers.

[Anonymous No.21657734]

>>21657592
All theology is stupid. We know this because the earliest "religions" were scientific; that is: they were aimed at divination (augury, cosmology) to study and read and predict the natural world (weather patterns for crop growing, wind patterns for safe sailing).

Whereas theology ignores the natural world in favor of a made-up alternate dimension where virtue/vice proof/order can be made-up so that virtue/vice can be inverted and ignored by those who wish to be viceful and lazy. Theology is a pocket dimension of personal insanity; the stronger it is for a person the more it has subsumed their natural good sense: this is observed constantly in the character of people who are the most vocal in their self-profession of "belief", their characters are full of enmity and viciousness and this has been observed of them since the 1st Century.

>>21657619
>Why are you trying to substitute "priest" and "church" for "rabbi" and "temple"?
Because it's accurate and your objectio n would be like,,
>Why are you trying to substitute "godi" and "hof" for "priest" and "temple"?
as obviously godi and hof are just local words 'for' priest and temple.

In fact, better: why are 'you' substituting "Elder" and "Public Assembly" for "Priest" and "Church"? For example, we know that Jesus and Paul never mentioned a synagogue-type building (a church building) with rabbi-like priest officials as being anything that they personally approved of or ever established.

As I said to the other guy yesterday or whenever, Elder/Maiores (Mayor) and Ecclesia (civil assembly) carry political weight in Roman Law in meaningful ways; Priest and Temple carry weight well but are far less powerful in their political duties and are disconnected utterly from the Priest and the Temple.

i know youay gloss over this or not understandit but, it's worth mentioning for the context of the "original religion of the christians" circa pablo

>Pharisee judaism wasn't even the same as the Israelite religion.
yea sure whatever

>.jpg
Your painting is a good effort, anonobon, but all of your portraits there should be the same jewish caricature. If you need to make-pretend that the hebrews and jesus were anglo-saxon white guys then you're already engaging in self-deceptive vice.

[Anonymous No.21657741]

>>21657608
>I don't know how anybody can not put this together and spot the Pharisee mentality of the later Churches;
Well, it mentions in the New Testament numerous times that there will be "wolves in sheeps clothing" who appear and try to lead people away from the truth of the Lord.

The Pharisees are consistently a bad example. They appear outwardly "righteous," however Jesus points out that they are full of hypocrisy. He pointed out their hypocrisy in following their own man-made laws, but in the process ignoring the most important commandments from scripture, for instance about loving God and having mercy. See for example this exchange:

"And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
- Matthew 9:10-13

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
- Matthew 23:23-28

Here we see that they aren't really following what they were commanded to by the divine Law. Instead, they made a show of themselves to impress other people, and generally ignore the Law except where it's convenient to them to make themselves look better. We indeed shouldn't be like them.

"And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."
- Mark 12:28-31

[Anonymous No.21657742]

>>21652780
>Romans (non-Jews) are already more Virtuous than even the best of the Jews or Christians; Jews should strive to be as a good as they are / Jesus and Paul
This made me gag. If you think this you can't have the first idea of morality.

[Anonymous No.21657749]

>>21657619
here's the original approved version.

[Anonymous No.21657771]

>>21657742
>This made me gag. If you think this you can't have the first idea of morality.

Well the Romans had the 32 or 37 Virtues which were taught and explained clearly from early childhood to little Romans, as well as their corresponding Vices,
e.g. Industry vs. Sloth, Honesty vs. Dishonesty.,
which result in a far clearer comrehension of Good and Bad for a person in order that they may avoid bad and strive for good, thus producing a superior character, compared... anyway... to the nihilism of declaring good/bad are unknowable and praying for the world to be destroyed in order to live for eternity in paradise.

Technically however,
>If you think this
I was simply paraphrasing Jesus and Pauls great admiration for the Romans by contrast to their own people.

"i tell you the truth, i haven't faith like this in all israel!"
Jesus, of the Roman soldier

He even says he's telling you the truth so you can't wriggle out of acknowledging the point.

[Anonymous No.21657779]

>>21657741
>"wolves in sheeps clothing" who appear and try to lead people away from the truth of the Lord.
>The Pharisees are consistently a bad example. They appear outwardly "righteous," however Jesus points out that they are full of hypocrisy.
Yes, that's it exactly - but you didn't answer what i asked you lol

Which was: how can you not recognize the Priest as representing these things?

[Anonymous No.21657840]

>>21657779
>Which was: how can you not recognize the Priest as representing these things?
Which priest is that?

[Anonymous No.21657853]

>>21657840
>>21657741
I agree with a lot of this to be honest with you, it's so easily proven as to the priestish 'character type' he's talking about which is recognized immediately in the fake-piety of those who..
>strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
i.e. to make a great contention over their own minor trivialities whilst ignoring utterly the terrible things being done by themselves.

If a religious person doesn't like to hear this said of themselves or of their priests, and if they cannot accept the lesson with humility, then they are the same character and mentality as those Pharisees.

To me this is obvious.

... so, try again:
how can you not recognize the Priest as representing these things?

and don't be dishonest and pretend you don't understand what I'm asking you by saying things like,
>Which priest is that?

[Anonymous No.21657861]

>>21657771
>Virtues which were taught and explained clearly from early childhood to little Romans, as well as their corresponding Vices,
>e.g. Industry vs. Sloth, Honesty vs. Dishonesty.,
>which result in a far clearer comrehension of Good and Bad for a person in order that they may avoid bad and strive for good, thus producing a superior character
This is an incredibly child-like understanding of morality and virtue. All of these "virtues" are simply tools of power to control society. The powerful impose them for the benefit of all the people in society. But that is not true morality. Following these simple rules are not even half the story. You can't base morality on worldly benefit or worldly virtue. The commandments are superior but even those aren't enough. You have to look deep inside yourself and follow your heart and soul to death itself. You have to have total and complete empathy for your fellow man. To lay down your life simply because you don't want to harm the hair on your own murderer's head. To love your slave master as a son. Could Roman virtue ever lead to this? Could it ever lead to Jesus' actions? Not even close. Empathy and humanity are complete anathema to Roman morality.

>"i tell you the truth, i haven't faith like this in all israel!"
>Jesus, of the Roman soldier
The point was that he was shaming Israel by saying they were lesser than the dog of a nation of pure evil. Israel had fallen but that's a statement about Israel. The pagans were always lesser people and not even capable of morality.

[Anonymous No.21657868]

>>21657634
That is giga cringe what in the fuck

[Anonymous No.21657871]

ed.
it bears recalling that this point where Jesus and Paul are battling "organized religion" is a lesson which is easy enough to understand but which is blurred by pretending that it s"only the jews" that Jesus and Paul are fighting against.

Does the Late Christian Anti-Semitism begin and end with this point...? i.e. if you want to have priests and chruch-buildings like synagogues, then you're forced to minimize the antagonists role of priests and church-buildings against Jesus and Paul in the first place by deflecting the bad role of priests onto "only jews" instead.

[Anonymous No.21657881]

>>21657853
>If a religious person doesn't like to hear this said of themselves or of their priests
Our high priest is Christ Jesus, see Hebrews 7. I'm obviously not going to say anything like that about Him.

>>21657861
>The pagans were always lesser people and not even capable of morality.
I disagree, that's not what we see presented in the Gospels at all.

[Anonymous No.21657888]

>>21657881
The Roman soldier had faith but not morality. The most righteous Roman was Pontius Pilate.

[Anonymous No.21657942]

>>21657861
>This is an incredibly child-like understanding of morality and virtue.
Hahahaha sure - actual good work in the world; actual self improvement to better peoples lives around you after fixing yourself from your "inherited errors" and childlike disposition to petty vice (pathos vs. logos), all these things which require constant effort and intelligence and humilty to undertake in the first place,
vs.
nihilism and the false pretense to believe yourself "above everything" because your verbal announce that you believe in a god whilst undertaking no work on yourself at all.. whilst remaining unlearned in any of the virtues.

Sure. What you said isn't baseline projection at all,
>This is an incredibly child-like understanding of morality and virtue.

>All of these "virtues" are simply tools of power to control society. The powerful impose them for the benefit of all the people in society.
No. This just proves how alien the very concept of Virtue is amongst some people. Virtue vs. Vice is Superior vs. Inferior / Good Long-Term Prosperity; Amiable Judgement vs. Short Term Gains; Short Term Thinking, for example.

>You can't base morality on worldly benefit or worldly virtue.
Of course you can, as it's the only thing you know for sure is actually real and benefits everybody. Even the worst kind of religious follower who at least will say that god created world would come to the same conclusion about this. The only way to know a true 'god' is through unbiased study of the world.

Whereas: what you describe, about the imposition of dumb laws for the sake of control, is precisely what a religion does when it declares some inherited custom (genital mutilation) to be "holy" and some other inherited custom of your neighbors (eating pork) to be "unholy".

> To love your slave master as a son. Could Roman virtue ever lead to this?
Absolutely, Romans were freeingtheir slaves because of this for centuries; not so much that a slave would love their master but that their master would regard the slave as a son or daughter and adopt them into their family, which was how slaves were freed and where the word 'family' comes from.

>Empathy and humanity are complete anathema to Roman morality.
Empathy; Pathos, is/was understood as an anathema sure, in that it's regarded as a baseline state of "hyper emotionalism; being controlled through your emotions rather than your good logic" which leads to poor judgement.

i.e. this,
>You have to have total and complete empathy for your fellow man.
is a failure in judgement to differentiate commonly applied emotional trickery from sincere requests. RIP George Floyd.

whereas this,
>To lay down your life simply because you don't want to harm the hair on your own murderer's head.
is simply foolishness.


> The pagans were always lesser people and not even capable of morality.
lol sure.

e.g.
In my opinion when Paul announces that "it is impossible to be good" he's coming from judaism which portrays the god as being evil.

[Anonymous No.21657955]

>>21657888
>The Roman soldier had faith but not morality. The most righteous Roman was Pontius Pilate.

Ah, contd. >>21657942 >>21657861
>re: empathy, pathos, emotionalism

If Pilate had been a better Man he would not have caved to the Pathos of the Jewish Priests, he would have set Jesus free and ignored the demands to kill Jesus - who had broken no Law whatsoever.

The dilemma of Pilate is particularly interesting to me; he comes off badly I think, for not having the willpower to simply tell the Jews to fuck off and turn his troops on them if they refused to comply.

[Anonymous No.21657975]

>>21657888
>The most righteous Roman was
obviously Pantera. He cared enough to give Mariam good time.

[Anonymous No.21658013]

>>21657861
sorry, 3rd. ed.

>>All of these "virtues" are simply tools of power to control society. The powerful impose them for the benefit of all the people in society.
> Virtue vs. Vice is Superior vs. Inferior
i.e. "you have to be a powerful Man in order to grant mercy"* or forgiveness to someone; if a starving Man steals some of your apples you can't afford to let him go if you're also starving or rely on that crop to feed your household, but if you're well-off reasonably speaking then you can afford to be merciful.

*this is a saying found across the world

Whereas, anyway, to some religious types is concept of helping others is diminished already because they have a theology which tells them that "good work" doesn't matter.

I watched, a few weeks ago, a crowd of street preachers standing and proclaiming their powers, whilst across the road from there homeless people were sitting hungry. The preachers picked up and left with big smiling faces and the thought didn't occur to any of them to reach into their pockets and 'help' people who needed help. A theology which results in that mentality is useless at best, and is anyway not what Jesus would have liked,

as the other guy quoted: >>21657741

The false-piety is the most offensive thing, in my opinion. Certainly if a God existed the people he hates the most are those who excuse their own personal vice by pretending they do so "in Gods name".

[Anonymous No.21658036]

>it's a brainlet that doesn't read thread
>https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.40202/page/n7/mode/2up

[Anonymous No.21658038]

>>21657861
>This is an incredibly child-like understanding of morality and virtue. All of these "virtues" are simply tools of power to control society. The powerful impose them for the benefit of all the people in society.
>The commandments are superior
It's better when Moses does it, because it just is, okay?!?!

[Anonymous No.21658087]

>>21657955
Pilate was in charge of keeping the peace in a particularly difficult province. He didn't want your co-religionists to start rioting so he let them eat one of their own. According to them this Yeshua character had violated some superstition, a censure the Roman might perhaps appreciate even if he did not know the local superstition itself. The gospel authors dramatize him "washing his hands" of it but it was indeed a hands-off issue quite literally beneath the diginity of his office. The Romans allowed that sort of autonomy and local custom within their empire because they were not informed by the sort of absolutism that comes with mosaic law. They would not have been allowed to execute a Roman, but thos being condemned weren't Romans.

[Anonymous No.21658165]

>>21658087
Nonsense, he should have told them to fuck off. Autonomy be damned, none of your barbarians are intellectually capable of not abusing the autonomy given to you. It's a waste of time, but a good lesson in the flaws of democracy.

[Anonymous No.21658192]

>>21658165
Why would he have wanted to expend Roman manpower and treasury to attempt modify the local customs of an obnoxious but currently behaving people? Perhaps you are right for the wrong reason—sparing Jesus would have spared us Christianity

[Anonymous No.21658441]

>>21658192
>Why would he have wanted to expend Roman manpower and treasury
...oh yes, i forgot aout the great strain on manpower and treasury it would have taken to deploy your garrisoned legion in the city it's garrisoned in for a routine crowd control operation against an already disarmed civilian populace.

No, I agree with you really; obviously if Jesus was speaking for only a few people then it would've no sense to install him as a Tribune. Still...

[Anonymous No.21658801]

>>21658165
>none of your barbarians are intellectually capable of not abusing the autonomy given to you. It's a waste of time, but a good lesson in the flaws of democracy.
You really aren't familiar with the situation. The Jews were rebels and they had a group called Zealots who were basically terrorists. The region was constantly rebelling. Not killing Jesus would have potentially sparked another war. Now here your "virtue" must hang on this, rule with the truth and spare Jesus while destroying your career or let him hang and stop a potentially bloody war.

[Anonymous No.21658831]

>>21657942

>Virtue vs. Vice is Superior vs. Inferior / Good Long-Term Prosperity; Amiable Judgement vs. Short Term Gains; Short Term Thinking, for example.
So virtue is just what is naturally to be of your best benefit? Every man respects what is truly better and superior for himself when he believes it so. These are just concepts of conduct that help yourself. That's not morality.

>as it's the only thing you know for sure is actually real and benefits everybody.
So you have no faith

>The only way to know a true 'god' is through unbiased study of the world.
The God of this world is condemned

>when it declares some inherited custom (genital mutilation) to be "holy" and some other inherited custom of your neighbors (eating pork) to be "unholy".
Strange how that exactly what Jesus abolished

>but that their master would regard the slave as a son or daughter and adopt them into their family
Not even close to what I was referring to

>poor judgement.
To the worldly mind true morality is poor judgement.

>is a failure in judgement to differentiate commonly applied emotional trickery from sincere requests.
So Jesus was wrong?

>is simply foolishness.
So Jesus was wrong?

Read the sermon on the mount

[Anonymous No.21658855]

>>21658013
>"you have to be a powerful Man in order to grant mercy"* or forgiveness to someone;
This is why the doctrine of "works" is so damning. Those who have more power can afford to do more good. So the poor are now condemned by this morality and it justifies people being evil, acquiring more, and then justifying it by giving away some smaller portions of their goods. If we all just took what we needed, did what we needed, there would be no room for evil.

>but if you're well-off reasonably speaking then you can afford to be merciful.
In this situation all I see is one man with more than he needs and two men with less. The one at fault is the one with more.

>The preachers picked up and left with big smiling faces and the thought didn't occur to any of them to reach into their pockets and 'help' people who needed help.
If they have pockets to reach into then they need to go back to the gospels.

[Anonymous No.21658884]

>>21657942
>>21658831
I really want to hammer home this idea of "poor judgement." Imagine you have a ring or a hat that prevents anyone from seeing any of your flaws. You can get away with anything and still be regarded as a good person. No one will stop you from doing anything but everything you do will still have consequences for other people. With that said, according to your morality of virtue, would you still act as virtuous as you should do now or in this situation would this be a "poor judgement."

Imagine someone who hated you had this hat. How would you convince them that the virtuous thing is not to kill you and take everything you own as your family praises him?

[Anonymous No.21658895]

>>21658441
>lol why don't you provoke a riot that might spread across the city because you crossed the idiot provincials over some stupid theological gibberish wholly internal to themselves which they insisted was super serious and then attempt with your limited, non-replenishable resources to stop them?
you're fired christer I want you out of my tent go back to Syria and play with your goats

[Anonymous No.21659334]

>>21658801
>>21658895
>rule with the truth and spare Jesus while destroying your career or let him hang and stop a potentially bloody war.
I know the arguments of this, my point is that the place was constantly rebelling anyway; so who would have cared? In this scenario Pilate probably was thinking as you say, to avert trouble and appease the mob... but that's never a good idea; that's "being a slave to the mob". Pilates job was to maintain order, not to appease people who had already proven themselves untrustworthy.

It's also worth bearing in mind that Tiberius Caesar around this time had the entire priesthood of Moloch hunted down and crucified because they refused to agree not to sacrifice babies anymore. So there would have been precedent for this, and Imperial Authority to just drag the Pharisees out and nail them up along the road.

INTERFAITH OUTREACH TIME
>>21658831
Faith, as you understand it is more akin to False-Hope in the story of Pandora; the cardinal evil. Whereas Faith as a concept comes from the Latin Fides; meaning fidelity to agreements and keeping ones word. The idea of "blind faith in (nothing)" is a nonsense, as much so as blind faith itself.

>The God of this world is condemned
>the worldly mind
>morality
Condemned by who? A religion that tells you to turn your back on the world and the people in it is not a religion of anything good.

This very point that you conversos gravitate towards is what causes you to be alienated from 'true good', that is: actual good, by putting 'basic good'up on a pedestal and considering self-betterment to be unattainable. The evil amongst you love this because it excuses them from correction, the ignorant amongst you stay ignorant and serving the biggest sinner because your concept of 'virtue' has been twisted up: you consider the most evil person around to be 'better' if he or she says "sorry", whereas you don't care for the men and women, in the vast majority, who aren't evil in the first place. You should learn from them, and not elevate the most evil people you can find in these sick displays of fake piety from the lowest most depraved persons.

>re: pathos
but you'd understand this if you had a tradition of moderation and self-control instead of a tradition that said things like,
"moderation is too hard, complete abstinence is easier," Augustin.

>re: pathos, was jesus wrong
About letting people execute him? Absolutely. And that other would take a lesson from this to surrender to petty barbarians? Totally stupid.

"it takes no effort at all to let yourself die for your cause, it takes much more effort to live it,"
Wu Zhi Ji Zong

Though Jesus was hardly a pacifist, "sell your cloak and buy a sword," more likely the story of Jesus as God wouldn't be as impressive if it had said that he was overpowered by the guardsmen.

>Strange how that exactly what Jesus abolished
Yes, Jesus was right. Fuck the priests.

[Anonymous No.21659368]

>>21658884
>No one will stop you from doing anything but everything you do will still have consequences for other people.
That is the point of virtue though; the consequences. Bad short-term thinking has bad consequences; if you rip people off they hate you, if you're good to them they're good to you or at least neutral to you.

Even if you were insulated from being stabbed for doing wrong (as in your example) it would still make sense to be benevolent and intelligent otherwise you'd just run your state into the ground and have a miserable demoralized people, fit for nothing. Ultimately if your eye is on maintaining your power in the long-term then you're forced to behave intelligently and decently, whereas if you can't comprehend the long-term then all you'll do is rob people for short-term gains.

In your example people might not see the flaws in your actions, but they will suffer the consequence if you do wrong and they will benefit from the consequence if you do right.

I hate to be cute about this but even a squirrel possesses superior judgment and superior self-control to most Men and Women over this point, as the squirrel has foresight to think in the extreme long-term and not immediately gorge on the food he's collected for the winter.

In your example if the other squirrels were blind to the squirrel eating their food supply, and kept praising the bad squirrel, they'd still all starve to death as the food supply would have vanished.

>invisible squirrels

[Anonymous No.21659477]

>>21659334
>Faith, as you understand it is more akin to False-Hope in the story of Pandora; the cardinal evil. Whereas Faith as a concept comes from the Latin Fides; meaning fidelity to agreements and keeping ones word. The idea of "blind faith in (nothing)" is a nonsense, as much so as blind faith itself.
Completely refuted by the story of the Roman soldier who believed without proof that Jesus would perform his miracles, the story of doubting Thomas, the story of Galilee, etc. etc. Nowhere is your definition of faith biblical.

>Condemned by who? A religion that tells you to turn your back on the world and the people in it is not a religion of anything good.
That's literally from the mouth of Jesus.

>by putting 'basic good'up on a pedestal and considering self-betterment to be unattainable
Self-betterment betters the self. It might, possibly, at some point, go on to better others but if it's always a false form of charity. Charity is usually just a way to feel superior than the person you're giving to and establish that superiority. All of these things are rewarded in this world. Why would you have another reward in the next one?

>you consider the most evil person around to be 'better' if he or she says "sorry", whereas you don't care for the men and women, in the vast majority, who aren't evil in the first place.
Most men and women are capable of the worst evil imaginable but haven't been put in a situation to prove it. Those that can come back from the depths are superior to those who have never been. I love evil people with all my heart.

>but you'd understand this if you had a tradition of moderation and self-control instead of a tradition that said things like,
Moderation is for cowards.

>"it takes no effort at all to let yourself die for your cause, it takes much more effort to live it,"
>Wu Zhi Ji Zong
Have a complete army of angels at your disposal and refuse to harm even one of your murders to save your life while praying for them and then you can say how easy it was. Do it if it's so simple. You would choose to save yourself a thousand times before you followed Jesus.

[Anonymous No.21659493]

>>21659368
>Even if you were insulated from being stabbed for doing wrong (as in your example) it would still make sense to be benevolent and intelligent otherwise you'd just run your state into the ground and have a miserable demoralized people, fit for nothing. Ultimately if your eye is on maintaining your power in the long-term then you're forced to behave intelligently and decently, whereas if you can't comprehend the long-term then all you'll do is rob people for short-term gains.
As long as you keep them alive and working then what's the issue? Enslave everyone, be a king, treat them to bread and circuses every now and again to keep their spirits up. But you would not still go to work every day. You would at least use your power to gain wealth by illicit means.

[Anonymous No.21659538]

>>21659334
>appease the mob... but that's never a good idea
It is if you're middle management and your directive is to keep things in order. You are looking for some sort of categorical imperative here but it is nowhere to be found in the real world.

[Anonymous No.21659959]

>>21659477
good god.

>Charity is usually just a way to feel superior
>I love evil people with all my heart.
>Moderation is for cowards.
> "turn your back on the world and the people in it" said Jesus

You're a rabid lunatic who belongs on a spike.

But.. uh.. yeah,
>Self-betterment betters the self. It might, possibly, at some point, go on to better others but if it's always a false form of charity.
This is precisely the self-inflicted ruin; prfligacy, that your mentality inflicts on all around you when you can't be bothered with "the world". It's intensely childish and the mentality of either a begging dependent or a spoiled child who simply has other people bringing him food that he doesn't know the origins of.

>Most men and women are capable of the worst evil imaginable but haven't been put in a situation to prove it. Those that can come back from the depths are superior to those who have never been. I love evil people with all my heart.
As I said before; you, due to your religious instruction, do not give a fuck about real people in the world who do good things and you elevate the worst of the worst; turning vice into virtue; and wonder why your churches are infested with corrupt child molesters. This is disgusting. If I bought into Abramic theology I would be forced to conclude that (this mentality) is Satanism in sheeps clothing.

>Do it if it's so simple. You would choose to save yourself a thousand times before you followed Jesus.
Follow Jesus to do what? excusing child molesters, ignoring the suffering in the world, stopping being moderate, ceasing virtue, lying to myself that reality doesn't exist, lying to myself that i'll get into hebrew heaven with 72 virgins if i chant the tanak enough lol ... whilst obviously i would have to start doing vice again in order to have things to be "saved from" ... sure.

See again: >>21659334
>This very point that you conversos gravitate towards is what causes you to be alienated from 'true good', that is: actual good, by putting 'basic good'up on a pedestal and considering self-betterment to be unattainable. The evil amongst you love this because it excuses them from correction, the ignorant amongst you stay ignorant and serving the biggest sinner because your concept of 'virtue' has been twisted up: you consider the most evil person around to be 'better' if he or she says "sorry", whereas you don't care for the men and women, in the vast majority, who aren't evil in the first place. You should learn from them, and not elevate the most evil people you can find in these sick displays of fake piety from the lowest most depraved persons.

Disgusting. In my opinion you belong in chains in a slave galley rowing around food parcels. You'd be forced to do good with your life against your lazy inclination and your endless sophistic excuses why you don't want to, if I had my way. Fucking animals.

[Anonymous No.21659984]

>>21659493
Why would any of that follow? Obviously people who have this stupid opinion of people running actual states or households have never run one if they think that 'that' is fine.

It's a slaves power fantasy what you describe, and is certainly ahistorical in that any people who ruled like that either wrecked their state/household and ended in poverty, or were killed before they could wreck it completely. Whereas people who ruled properly produced golden ages in the world.

>>21659538
"it's never a good idea" ..according to Romans from the time, I ought have said. Appeasing a mob of conquered traitors makes as much sense as letting prison inmates have their way.

I think we're drifting from the topic. I'll not entertain anymore of this nonsense about Pilate, as if he was a middle manager in a shop. Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.21659990]

>>21659477
gross perversions of Jesus's own life.

[Anonymous No.21660026]

>>21659984
>as if he was a middle manager in a shop
I see you've never dealt with bureaucracy up close

[Anonymous No.21660044]

>>21659959

"I am a moralfag. I am going to make a display of being a moralfag on the anonymous internet website where Very Naughty Pictures are posted routinely."

I barely read either of the posts but your initial remark about charity is actually true, if you can't see that then you have brain damage. But keep being a "good tough guy" who wants his enemy on a spike or in a slave galley or whatever. There's also language in your post suggesting that you might be anti-Catholic ("contrary" to my image choice), but I don't care to parse out which autist is saying exactly what, I'm just reacting to both annoying posts.

[Anonymous No.21660331]

>>21660044
my initial reply about charity is true, if i can't see that my initial reply is true than i have brain damage.

>I barely read either of the posts
you're hilarious, anon, your bumbling clownery coupled with your pridefulness at not being able to read is exactly the kind of act we need for the first interlude at the next performance of Aristophanes 'The Clouds'.

>>21660026
>I see you've never dealt with bureaucracy up close
transposing contemporary angst backwards through time and onto the Roman Empire is exactly what's wrong with popular historians.

[Anonymous No.21660437]

>>21652780
Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.21660459]

>>21652780
>Priests are all corrupt and are not to be taken seriously: Priests use the name of God to legitimize their evil actions. / Jesus and Paul
jesus says to observe all that the scribes and pharisees command even in spite of their evil actions
>Paul is driven mad by his own crimes in the employ of the priests; coming to recognize them as completely heinous influences, and goes on a pilgrimage to speak with the Jewish enclaves across the Roman Empire
paul says that his mission is bringing the gospel to the gentiles on multiple occasions:
>he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles

[Anonymous No.21660506]

>>21660331
>transposing contemporary angst backwards through time
If you think the Roman empire, THE Roman empire, the one that gave us the term EMPIRE, did not have a bureaucracy and everything that goes with it, and that people back then were magically immune to social or economic realities within their employment/vocation, you are the pop historian who couldn't care less what actually went on and is just gushing over dates and maps like he's playing a video game. I guarantee you Pilate or his office would have had to, for starters, write letters explaining himself if shit hit the fan and he managed to contain it, handle the resupplying of his army, if not re-staffing it due to some sudden uhh... departures, get stuck dealing with the broken windows all over Jerusalem, etc. And that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario he has to do his job from the next city over until they can get this sorted out because his office is full of dancing rabbis. And all this, to what, save someone he probably had little sympathy for from those he had even less sympathy for? What is this a Hollywood movie? Listum Schindlerorum?

[Anonymous No.21660515]

>>21655814
>And, bear in mind, Jesus nor Paul ever held up a book and told anyone it was Gods Words as the bible didn't exist.
jesus chided the saducees for ignoring what god had spoken to them before quoting exodus. i don't know how much more explicit you can get. or this:
>Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures

[Anonymous No.21661698]

just little courtesy bump

[Anonymous No.21661752]

INTERFAITH OUTREACH No. 2 : RHOMAION FOR BEGINNERS
>>21660506
>If you think the Roman empire, THE Roman empire, the one that gave us the term EMPIRE,
HOLY CORNFLAKES

First off: there is so much fucking wrong with the 'opinion' we/they/you/i had/have of the Romans that you have to cut through a layer of mystification and garbage so thick before you can appraise the romans properly; it's not unlike the way the ancient hebrews are considered by the christians, kind of.

Obviously the Roman governments were vastly unlike modern and later examples; their government during this time (prior to the true bureaucracy which came from the diocese in the 4th cent) a relatively quick and efficient thing - there were one year terms of office, the cursus honorum ensured that all offices were staffed by field-tested persons - without going into major detail about all of that here though..

>the one that gave us the term EMPIRE
Empire and Emperor were not words they used or concepts they held, these are bastardizations or perversions of actual offices and actual titles: the Romans had Consuls and and Augustus who held Imperium, it was an Imperium which means 'centralized command', hence: if you were a citizen you , as Pablo demonstrated, could actually defer judgment of civil or criminal matters to the Emp- to the Augustus or the Consuls, as that was part of their job. Nothing less was expected of a provincial governor; be it Proconsul or Procurator.

The idea of Pilate, an Imperial Procurator, simply declaring business of the day to be beneath him is a nonsense for that period. He would have been expected to arbitrate, at the bare minimum, between disputations in that fashion; as he did with King Herod and Paul, in that comical scene in Acts.

These people were not your idle day-jobber like your modern politician, the system in place was designed with intent to sculpt their character to be a certain way and the offices were barred to those who had not completed the course of offices...

...a Procurator, which I would suppose Pilate was (as he wasn't a proconsul), was an office that combined economic management with judicial affairs and commands the central planning for an entire province and all its communities within.

Long story short: it would have been a badge of honor and merit for Pilate to have come up with a creative solution to the problem, it did not reflect well upon him (and he was recalled) to appease a mob in the manner that he did; because he shows incredible weakness by doing that which the barbarians then take advantage of; exactly as certain barbarians make certain nations governess look like little children today. You could say that Pilates refusal to tell the Jews to fuck off was in and of itself a great moment where they were emboldened for their next revolt.

>Listum Schindlerorum
hahaha that's a great title for a book

[Anonymous No.21661779]

>>21660515
Are you claiming that "the bible" existed before Jesus did? The so-called OT existed yes, but Jesus and Paul were clearly chiding those people for doing the same thing as you/others are doing here: you're holding up a book and doing legalism (technically) to excuse bad or stupid things which you rationalize as being "not bad or stupid" because it says "xyz" in your book. This has been my point here.

e.g. the person yesterday who belongs on a spike has, and I am quite serious in this, decided to actually love the most evil people he/she/it can find, to the exclusion all other people, because of a line in the book which he/she/it has interpreted in a certain way, and which has produced a monstrous disposition and a grievously stupid outlook which he/she/it cannot understand as being incredibly bad and which he/she/it rationalizes as being not the mentality of an evil person (for helping evil people be evil) but the mentality of a "highly godly person" because it can be interpreted as such in a book.

>>21660459
>paul says that his mission is bringing the gospel to the gentiles on multiple occasions:
Paul does, yes once or twice, but Jesus doesn't and his actions make this clear regardless,
"don't waste the bread of the children of israel on gentiles,"
"go nowhere near (the gentiles)" etc.

And regardless of Pauls "claims" he is still speaking only to Jews, as no Roman or Greek would have taken anything about the Hebrew religion at all seriously; viewing it as primitive barbarism for a people bereft of civilization, on par with Moloch and Baal, as it was a religion which contained bodily-mutilation of infants.

[Anonymous No.21661787]

>>21659477
okay so again we got a little carried way yesterday and I said: >>21659959
>>You're a rabid lunatic who belongs on a spike.

What I meant was: that disposition of yours is pure evil; worse than evil even (as you no doubt know better, but 'force' yourself to say those things because you think its what your religion demands you to say), and that you've arrived at it from (all the reasons i've previously mentioned).

CANNOT THOU SEETH THOU HATH INHERITED LIES?!?!

verily,
>you strain a gnat, and swallow a camel.

That's all I got for you. In the spirit of clementia. and concord. I hope you can summon the willpower to understand and accept what I've been trying to convey to you for these last couple of days.

and, stop trying to be so edgy.
>Moderation is for cowards.

[Anonymous No.21662703]

oh shit courtesy bump again

[Anonymous No.21662854]

>>21661787
>okay so again we got a little carried way yesterday and I said:
I chose not to reply because you were obviously in a frenzy

>that disposition of yours is pure evil; worse than evil even
I don't think my disposition is evil. I'm a pacifist and believe in "happy charity" and refuse to hate even a single person (hate is murder of the heart). I think I have such a high standard of goodness that you can't see it. I view almost everyone and most actions as somewhat evil. This is because of my intense introspection. The root of evil is in most things. All hate is murder, usury is theft, etc. Many people think they do good while beating their breasts and feeling pride.

>(as you no doubt know better, but 'force' yourself to say those things because you think its what your religion demands you to say)
I had my disposition before I had my religion. I discovered religion through the guidance of my soul. There was no instruction apart from my own reading.

>and, stop trying to be so edgy.
>>Moderation is for cowards.
My point was that people think they can get away with small vices if they have virtues to spare but even one vice is too much. "I can do 1 evil today so I can do 2 goods tomorrow" and thus evil is born into the world. People often don't see the evil in things because it's in small doses and doesn't affect them but if what was in their hearts were magnified and examined it would be pure evil. Obviously, the middle path is good but that's not the same thing as moderation.

[Anonymous No.21663033]

>>21662854
I wouldn't mistake willingness to recognize and deal properly with an objective evil as being "frenzied". we are not barbarians here, barbarian.

[Anonymous No.21663183]

>>21655114
>First of all - it's St. Paul.
Kill yourself, lmao. No more Joshua Graham videos for you.

[Anonymous No.21663307]

>>21661779
>Are you claiming that "the bible" existed before Jesus did?
i'm claiming jesus called the OT the word of god, because he indisputably did.

>The so-called OT existed yes, but Jesus and Paul were clearly chiding those people for doing the same thing as you/others are doing here: you're holding up a book and doing legalism (technically) to excuse bad or stupid things which you rationalize as being "not bad or stupid" because it says "xyz" in your book.
no, i'm citing scripture to back my position up, just like you cited jesus's words on the roman soldier. no need to pathologize normal discussion.

and to avoid arguing in circles i'm going to address something from an earlier post you made talking to another anon:
>it's more the case, as with the Pharisees, that they ignore everything else except the words in the 'bible/s' because they use them to justify their criminality;
i'm sorry, but there is absolutely no way to reconcile that with mark 7. what was jesus calling the word of god in verse 13? the only possible reading is that he was referring back to his citation of the torah in verse 10.

>And regardless of Pauls "claims" he is still speaking only to Jews, as no Roman or Greek would have taken anything about the Hebrew religion at all seriously; viewing it as primitive barbarism for a people bereft of civilization, on par with Moloch and Baal, as it was a religion which contained bodily-mutilation of infants.
and did paul just hallucinate all those gentiles getting pressured into circumcision in the galatian church? come on.

like i really don't think you have a bad idea here with the notion that a historical jesus admired roman virtue and wanted to impress it upon the jews. i don't really buy it but it's worth exploring. but you're not going to get anywhere if you insist based on nothing but indignation to sticking with ideas that are obviously wrong. this is going to be my last post in this thread because i can't see either of us having anything new to say.

[Anonymous No.21663385]

>>21662854
>I don't think my disposition is evil.
It absolutely is, it's derived form Pauls take on the God of Abramism being a vicious petty-minded monster; which the Jews, for reasons much as yourself, are forced to call Good, 'cos otherwise they'd recognize their entire religion was batshit,

hence, Paul on Judaism:
"it is impossible to be good," this isn't applicable to anybody other Pauls own Jews who follow that trash; and you guys who swallow that trash because you think it's meant for you.

My point was that whilst the barbarian is evil through idiocy or hunger or petty vice, you are come to condone other peoples evil through rationalization; hence: this is 'worse' than the petty barbarian, as you enable him to carry along. Note: you don't seek to correct him, you tell him that "everyone is evil" and so you justify him in his babyish mentality.

Essentially you do not recognize that vice and barbarism are inferior small things that are easily overcome; you, as Mohammed said, albeit in reverse, "turn in a molehill into a mountain," and force others to tolerate stupid viceful persons who would stop what they do the moment they were met with force, but you shelter and justify them. This is objectively worse than evil for that reason.

>"I can do 1 evil today so I can do 2 goods tomorrow"
That's religion. That's exactly how they think and act because they don't comprehend virtue and vice in a real-world and practical manner; they have the mentality you mention precisely because their comprehension is blurred and displaced into random fairy stories.

Also... I mean... I always found this strange that the Abramic God is all for the slaughter of babies even, but you guys would feel bad to slit a drug dealers throat. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I know, I know, Jesus said something. But still, if Pilate had turned his troops on the Priests he would saved the life of God, and if Pilate had given Jesus a civic office he would have enabled God to build his kingdom without having to wait. This is what you... ought believe, isn't it?

> introspection
Well in my experience those of (your previously stated) disposition are always guilty of some gross criminality, but as easily if you haven't done anything like that; as I think the vast majority have not, then it's a matter of false guilt and false shame holding you back from recognizing that yourself and the vats majority of persons are infinitely better than the most depraved sorts of people. The religion, in this instance, stops you from seeing and acting upon that knowledge.

> moderation.
requires self-control; controlled violence is okay as long it doesn't consume you, pleasure is okay as long it doesn't consume you. From a deistic point of view, the human body was made this way; and denialism over the senses is.. from a deistic point of view.. a blasphemy. But I wouldn't take it that far myself, the simple epicurean take is sufficient.

[Anonymous No.21663424]

>>21663307
>and did paul just hallucinate all those gentiles getting pressured into circumcision in the galatian church? come on.
"all those gentiles" lol, more likely people passing by shouted this at to him and this was his response. Explain, otherwise, why 'before' having heard of Jess from Paul that anybody would be "rushing to join" the jews?

>i'm claiming jesus called the OT the word of god, because he indisputably did.
> i'm citing scripture to back my position up, just like you cited jesus's words on the roman soldier.
Alright, I don't deny that he did this; but my point was that when 'you' do the same thing that you're falling into the trap that Paul and Jesus both mention: to take seriously the "jewish fables" of the OT (as Paul tells people to ignore jewish fables and genealogies etc.), whereas you hold up the OT as an infallible book of instructions for all mankind. And, also, that of the NT itself; which simply did not exist until centuries later anyway: there a vast difference between having a sense of a religious lesson and between relying upon a book or interpretations of that book, this was Pauls point, anyway, w/re: the OT and it's mine w/re OT/ and NT.

>this is going to be my last post in this thread because i can't see either of us having anything new to say.
Well if you like.

I can see why e notion of ditching the holy books is hard, but can you see why it puts you in the same position as the Pharisees not to?

Genuine question.

[Anonymous No.21663542]

>>21663385
>you don't seek to correct him, you tell him that "everyone is evil" and so you justify him in his babyish mentality.
This is wrong. Many people feel comfort in their own evil by point to a barbarian and saying "look how evil he is I will correct him." While also being terribly evil themselves. Ultimately, the only person I have control over is myself so I will attempt to be as not evil as I can while helping others as well. "Correcting" is a bad word since it implies some force. You can't force people to be good but you can demonstrate by example.

>Essentially you do not recognize that vice and barbarism are inferior small things that are easily overcome
They are absolutely not easy things. Vice and virtue are matters of perspective. To an infinite God we must have infinite virtue which is impossible for most people.

>force others to tolerate stupid viceful persons who would stop what they do the moment they were met with force
Force won't help them. People caught in vice need kindness, charity, and understanding. Failure to identify with those people in vice is just blindness to your own vices.

>but you shelter and justify them.
As I would shelter and justify your own shortcomings.

>if Pilate had given Jesus a civic office he would have enabled God to build his kingdom without having to wait. This is what you... ought believe, isn't it?
Jesus could raise the dead, cure any injury, and said he had an army of angels at his beck and call. If he wanted to do any of these things he could have. You have to ask why.

>Well in my experience those of (your previously stated) disposition are always guilty of some gross criminality
Here's my most recent crime. I bought video game dlc instead of giving it to the homeless. I felt that my surplus enjoyment was more important than a child's meal. How horrible am I? Some day I'll sort myself out.

>controlled violence is okay as long it doesn't consume you, pleasure is okay as long it doesn't consume you.
That's thinking in such finite terms. You're not getting to the philosophical root of the matter. What is good truly.

[Anonymous No.21664030]

>>21663542
>Force won't help them. People caught in vice need kindness, charity, and understanding.
> "look how evil he is I will correct him." While also being terribly evil themselves
This is circular sophistry though, again the primary basis for you to declare or presume that "whilst being terribly evil themselves" stems from the Abramic religion; the notion of "original sin; born evil, for eating a fruit (or, more properly: for desiring to know right from wrong),"

what else you said here i agree with, by and large. But, it does follow that people with this programming in their heads end up as other peoples slaves, usually the worst kinds of people, because they refuse to simply organize themselves and easily overpower the raiders.

e.g.
To a people ignorant of military logistics; a soft culture, they look at a drunken man as if he's a serious threat and apply maximal force against him, whereas to a people well-trained in military logistic that same man is no more a threat than an tantruming infant.

>Vice and virtue are matters of perspective. To an infinite God we must have infinite virtue
I would say that a God who made us and had some hand in the world also, perhaps, would be deeply disappointed that we'd stopped using our minds to solve our easily solvable problems. With religion out the picture the virtues and vices become far more recognizable as to their practical applications; virtue is intelligence, vice is idiocy, both require self-control of a persons own self to avoid idiocy (pathos) and study to become intelligent (logos).

> Failure to identify with those people in vice is just blindness to your own vices.
That's mostly true, but you're forgetting the actual heinous acts that most people would never undertake, even under extreme conditions. People lacking in conscience, for whatever reasons, to be capable of doing those heinous things ought be given no mercy at all; those like them are the most stupid sub-strata of our species who can only be terrified into not doing those heinous acts by visceral demonstrations of "what happens to those who do", it's good to want to educate them, of course, but such persons seldom seek help and pursue their crimes in the first place out of a desire to be caught and punished - even this, you could say, is part of a guilt complex instilled in them in some way... but... off-topic

I'd remind you that technically speaking, 'satan' is gods no.1 enforcer of gods laws; if the idea of punishing or stopping actually bad people seems wrong to you lol ...

>You're not getting to the philosophical root of the matter. What is good truly.
I'm wary of such things to be honest with you,it seems like higher sophistry to me when I see those who allegedly strive to be good going out of their way to aid and abet actual criminals.

Probably it's an economic matter anyway; if the classic barbarian steals wine it's largely because he's ignorant toward (or denied land for) the process of making wine for himself.

[Anonymous No.21664098]

>>21661752
>he shows incredible weakness by doing that which the barbarians then take advantage of
Letting them settle their own religious affairs was a normative Roman policy. They wouldn't learn who they were dealing with until it was too late

[Anonymous No.21664102]

>>21652830
yeah this is all true

[Anonymous No.21665125]

>>21664102
sans the fabula, sure.

>>21652830
>Paul rebuking the notion of any distinction between Jew and Gentile.
I missed this the first time around, but this - this point that kept coming up in this thread about "preaching to the gentiles" goes back to this also, Pauls words on the other hand fit better within the context of ending Abramisms racial supremacy thing altogether: saying, to Jews that they aren't any different to the people around them.

[Anonymous No.21665337]

>>21664030
>stems from the Abramic religion; the notion of "original sin; born evil, for eating a fruit (or, more properly: for desiring to know right from wrong),"
It doesn't come from that though. It comes from my observations of people and observations of my own self.

>virtue is intelligence, vice is idiocy, both require self-control of a persons own self to avoid idiocy (pathos) and study to become intelligent (logos).
Ok imagine that there's an infinitely superior intelligence who is more virtuous, smarter, self-mastered and more powerful than you or any other human will ever be. At the same time they have zero, of course, pathos whatsoever and would turn a million babies into canned meat if it would help them in even .001% in any way. Would this supreme rationality not be virtuous in your definition?

>but you're forgetting the actual heinous acts that most people would never undertake
A lot of normal people are sent into war and end up with necklaces of earrings. These people are normal. People adapt and learn how to cope with their situations. We learn and perpetuate our environment.

>People lacking in conscience, for whatever reasons, to be capable of doing those heinous things ought be given no mercy at all
I mean didn't you say that things that are good for you are virtuous and moral? In your morality what is the logical reason not to kill your rivals if you can cover it up and get away with it? This is what the people in power currently do. We just learned that the CIA blew up a pipeline and blamed the Russians. Ultimately, this will increase their power while the more "moral" action will decrease their power. The world is ruled by the most immoral actors that have enough power to convince you of their morality. In the end morality itself becomes a tool to justify those immoral people in power.

>I'm wary of such things to be honest with you,it seems like higher sophistry to me when I see those who allegedly strive to be good going out of their way to aid and abet actual criminals.
I don't think you know what sophistry is. Sophists are people who take whatever position they can to win while people who seek the truth can never lose an argument because even if they're wrong they will admit it. I only seek truth. To fully understand perfect, complete goodness we need to go beyond your tiny definitions. You overlook and allow so so so much evil.

>Probably it's an economic matter anyway; if the classic barbarian steals wine it's largely because he's ignorant toward (or denied land for) the process of making wine for himself.
It usually always is something like this. The world is a large set of billiard balls bouncing off each other.

[Anonymous No.21665372]

>>21665337
>virtue is intelligence, vice is idiocy, both require self-control of a persons own self to avoid idiocy (pathos) and study to become intelligent (logos).
Also you keep talking about short vs long term thinking and rewards. But my point is that short term thinking and long term thinking, self-mastery vs lack of control all have the same final goal in mind: reward for the self. Is the person who saves every penny 1 days before their death superior to the person who cashes out and retires at 65? No, because that decreases their happiness. Likewise, is the person who spends every cent they make on booze getting a better reward than the person who saves? No, they are punished by life themselves. So "virtue" in your definition is always something that naturally results in the betterment of the self. If this is the case why would anyone need to enforce virtue or punish those with vices? In fact if virtue is so obviously beneficial you should guard it like a precious jewel and make sure nobody knows so that you can increase your superiority to those with vices. If you make everyone virtuous then you'll have to be ever more virtuous to not seem like a drunkard barbarian just for having a sip of wine on Friday.

[Anonymous No.21665749]

>>21655114
Burn in hell, fake Christian!

[Anonymous No.21666401]

>>21665749
You’re just the same as him larping.

[Anonymous No.21666416]

What the fuck is even going on in this thread?

[Anonymous No.21666910]

>>21665337
>>21665372
>Ok imagine (hypothetical)
That action you describe wouldn't be logical, but if (that hypothetical) isn't the result of pathos (as those things usually are) and as you're saying is the result of 'cold logic' then no, it would be a failure to have maximalize the agricultural output of the land to have been forced to arrive at the decision to turn the future workers into canned food.

Virtue is a specific thing; look up the 32 (o 37) virtues, it's not just 'intelligence' by itself (logos, perhaps could be said to be pure cold logic - that's debatable- but logos would be forced to recognize virtue and accord itself to it, and logos would be virtuous anyway). For instance, it would be the vice of sloth to have not maximalized the land which resulted in cannibalism; the virtue of industria, then, would have prevented the cannibalism long in advance.

>I mean didn't you say that things that are good for you are virtuous and moral?
>self-mastery vs lack of control all have the same final goal in mind: reward for the self.
> In fact if virtue is so obviously beneficial you should guard it like a precious jewel and make sure nobody knows so that you can increase your superiority to those with vices
Things that are 'Good', not just good for an individual: if a person is short-sighted in this regard and decides that only their immediate benefit matters, then they will have the enmity of others instead of the friendship and support of others. What wealthy person would want to be the only rich man in town? It's just a target on his back, the intelligent person understands that he only has security if others have a good living. Ford and Roosevelt understood this, for instance. But we're drifting into economics now lol

> In your morality what is the logical reason not to kill your rivals if you can cover it up and get away with it?
Well, it would be a failure to grasp the massive economic (or other) benefits of a proper alliance with the perceived rivals. Either from stupidity to not grasp it, or from criminality to have established a weak power base reliant on a sluggish economy which would be threatened by "a rival" in the first place.

>sophistry
Well 'technically' it 'is' sophistry; it's circular reasoning. That you don't realize that it's circular and designed to put you into a loop is perhaps the single reason why you still believe in (those things): e.g. you think (or you say to me) "you can't stop a barbarian from robbing and raping, only god may judge that man!" which is foolishness.


This is a good question, really:
> Is the person who saves every penny 1 days before their death superior to the person who cashes out and retires at 65?
I would say absolutely yes that person is superior; because his actual life is not measured by his spending the money but by having the self-discipline 'not' to spend it... ..albeit he has bad luck.. but leaves an inheritance and is a great example to his community.

[Anonymous No.21666929]

>>21665337
>>21665372
>they are punished by life themselves.
Yes, eventually or immediately: but they can drag others down with them as, e.g. they need money and won't work for it, so they rob one place after the next. If they rob and destroy the last farm then all that means is that everyone now starves along with them because of their idiocy.

> So "virtue" in your definition is always something that naturally results in the betterment of the self. If this is the case why would anyone need to enforce virtue or punish those with vices?
It's a matter of "other people", and the reality of the world. We can recognize what causes people to do whatever bad that they do, but it's almost impossible to sit down with everybody and educate them out of their errors, as you won't even know who those people are until they're actually attacking you lol

I don't think this is necessarily 'bad' either; it's life, for one thing, but is people actually are not forced to be intelligent and defend themselves and understand the way the enemy (i.e. those who seek to simply do harm) operates, then they fall into lethargy anyway and become their own problems.

>If you make everyone virtuous then you'll have to be ever more virtuous to not seem like a drunkard barbarian just for having a sip of wine on Friday.
I don't think so: that's fake-piety in the first place, people who see no real reasons for (virtue) and make social displays to appear as if they were virtuous. The hypocrisy of people who do that is unarguably a product of their religion...

I mean, all of this: virtue and economics, didn't Jesus say this himself? "the kingdom is all around you", what might he have meant by that in real-world terms? I think he meant that the beggars on the street can be a workforce to farm the barren land by the side of the street; to feed themselves and plenty more people, things like that.

[Anonymous No.21666946]

ed.
>but is people actually are not forced to be intelligent and defend themselves and understand the way the enemy
I mean:
but if people actually are not forced to be intelligent 'by' having to defend themselves then they will never understand the way the enemy (and ever understand the causes of those things; they view them as monsters or something)

[Anonymous No.21666951]

>>21666416
Schizo larping.

[Anonymous No.21667004]

>>21666951
>Schizo larping.
no, i don't think anybody in this thread is a catholic.