Thought experiment

[エボラちゃん]

Imagine a world where the Roman Empire didn't convert to Christianity.
>No religious schisms. (Orthodox>Catholic>Protestant>Anglican) ~> US Settlers [Puritans]
Imagine a timeline where Brits, Spics and Frogs never developed colonial empires.
>No technological, political and cultural transfer to primitive societies. No demographic explosion, ethnic replacement at best.

My observation:
Christianity played an undeniable role in supplanting ethnic/cultural in-group preference with universal principles encapsulated within the worship a common deity. But instead of unifying people across Europe, it divided them. Then it became weak and needed to spread to other continents. It was also a fertile ground that permitted for Humanism and modern Western "Universal" system of belief. This is how colonial empires felt a duty to "civilize" the savage by giving them technology that will later backfire on the native Europeans.

My Conclusion:
Western xenophilia, was introduced by a foreign belief system adopted by the Romans. It cannot be reversed because an important chunk of the native European population was bred and selected to fit into that mold. The main culprits are Western European with North Americans being the latest strand of the mind virus.

Solution(?):
Self inflicted demographic replacement should dampen the efficiency of the brain rot spread in societies with healthy cultural anti-bodies. Effects are already observable but it should take 2-3 centuries for the West to reach total decay from which it may have a fresh start.

>WHAT ABOUT DA JOOS?!?!
Christianity is downstream of Judaism. Jewish influence is a symptom, not the cause.
>WHAT ABOUT DA MUSLIMS?!?!
Tool of the Jews to keep midwit distracted.

 

[Tornado]

The tendency for an advanced society to be overtaken by a more barbarous one is lamented in both the Epic of Gilgamesh and in the Iliad. The casus belli of the Gallic Wars was that the "Romanized" Gauls were being attacked by a more savage race of Gauls, which gave Caesar permission to invade and install Roman garrisons: colonies by any other name. Your theory is braindead.

All the more, the philosophical trajectory of late antiquity was toward the universal regardless of Christian theology. There's a reason that by the close of the Academy it was dominated by Neoplatonists. So beyond your historical illiteracy, you also don't know much about philosophy either, at least enough to have an intelligent thing to say about it. In other words, read a fucking book you degenerate.

 

[エボラちゃん]

The tendency for an advanced society to be overtaken by a more barbarous one is lamented in both the Epic of Gilgamesh and in the Iliad. The casus belli of the Gallic Wars was that the "Romanized" Gauls were being attacked by a more savage race of Gauls, which gave Caesar permission to invade and install Roman garrisons: colonies by any other name. Your theory is braindead.

All the more, the philosophical trajectory of late antiquity was toward the universal regardless of Christian theology. There's a reason that by the close of the Academy it was dominated by Neoplatonists. So beyond your historical illiteracy, you also don't know much about philosophy either, at least enough to have an intelligent thing to say about it. In other words, read a fucking book you degenerate.

Sure I'm not a bookworm that can cite books every two sentences to validate my post.
Your reply is pompous and doesn't address anything I said. You're just calling me dumb in a typical passive aggressive tone.
Yeah it's probably poltard nonsense but it is an invitation for fun speculation, not a historical lecture to prove that I'm right.
I appreciate the reply but don't waste your time here since this is clearly below your intellect.

 

[Tornado]

Sure I'm not a bookworm that can cite books every two sentences to validate my post.
Your reply is pompous and doesn't address anything I said. You're just calling me dumb in a typical passive aggressive tone.
Yeah it's probably poltard nonsense but it is an invitation for fun speculation, not a historical lecture to prove that I'm right.
I appreciate the reply but don't waste your time here since this is clearly below your intellect.

Your "fun thought experiment" is an indulgent fantasy and masturbating to your own ignorance. It's destructive to your own imagination. It is less than a shitpost, it is a self-shitpost. It plays on common cliches that are as annoying as they are boneheaded. Can it really be a thought experiment if there's no thought put into the premise?

 

[エボラちゃん]

Your "fun thought experiment" is an indulgent fantasy and masturbating to your own ignorance. It's destructive to your own imagination. It is less than a shitpost, it is a self-shitpost. It plays on common cliches that are as annoying as they are boneheaded. Can it really be a thought experiment if there's no thought put into the premise?

You should've had the decency of following my advice and move on, but no.
Now you're derailing the thread and lecturing me about why your opinion of me is valid and I should give it credit because you're a fart huffing idiot that takes forum discussion as phd thesis. Please spare the both of us and go humiliate yourself elsewhere.

 

[Tornado]

You should've had the decency of following my advice and move on, but no.
Now you're derailing the thread and lecturing me about why your opinion of me is valid and I should give it credit because you're a fart huffing idiot that takes forum discussion as phd thesis. Please spare the both of us and go humiliate yourself elsewhere.

Hey man you've got me all wrong! It's not even like that!

 

[Str8Bustah]

The Lord loves you, but he really wants you to cool your ego.

While this might be a little hard to grasp, the Lord doesn't say you can't have any enemies; that's a misrepresentation of his teachings. What he says is that you shouldn't let the fact that your enemies are your enemies cloud your judgment.

In fact, by virtue of your enemies being your enemies you should pray for their salvation with even more zeal than the prayer you may offer for a friend, because your enemy needs that prayer more than your friend does. After all, the Lord did not come to call the righteous to salvation, but sinners to repentance, and the more someone is mired in sin, the more the Lord wishes for them to be healed through repentance.

 

[Male Idiot]

The plotline is kind of autistic. The romans may have fallen, but Christianity decidedly was a bad influence for them. When Penus Minimus Chuddus picked up the silly phamplet and figured he would join the hecky wacky jewish cult, he did not knew that it will end with ROME HAS FALLEN. Billions most worship Iudea!

Thre is no fixing it, its inoperable. You can just hope that someone intelligent like Chinamen or Weebanese come after and not Ug the dirt digger from Africa and Abdul the goat love champion. Currently it is the worst timeline:
GOOD MORNING SAAAR! -cow fart noises- is what the minerates of new West will be singing for millenia, smeared in the feces of ages.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Sure I'm not a bookworm that can cite books every two sentences to validate my post.

And yet you think you're qualified to say shit like:

But instead of unifying people across Europe, it divided them

Western xenophilia, was introduced by a foreign belief system adopted by the Romans

Christianity is downstream of Judaism. Jewish influence is a symptom, not the cause.

Do yourself a favor and read a book or two. Or, at the very least, a few Wikipedia articles before spouting retardery.

 

[エボラちゃん]

And yet you think you're qualified to say shit like:




Do yourself a favor and read a book or two. Or, at the very least, a few Wikipedia articles before spouting retardery.

So according to you, I need qualification to say: Christianity is divided between different cult that are distributed across different countries in Europe?
Western xenophilia is factually observable, maybe it's a genetic predisposition but I have yet to see studies being made on that.
The gist of your post is to call me illiterate and ignore the entire premise of my post.
You know people who reason like this? Demagogue and midwits who needs appeal to authority to validate their cognitive dissonance. I appreciate the reply but I must say you didn't put much effort in this post at all.

 

[Tornado]

So according to you, I need qualification to say: Christianity is divided between different cult that are distributed across different countries in Europe?
Western xenophilia is factually observable, maybe it's a genetic predisposition but I have yet to see studies being made on that.
The gist of your post is to call me illiterate and ignore the entire premise of my post.
You know people who reason like this? Demagogue and midwits who needs appeal to authority to validate their cognitive dissonance. I appreciate the reply but I must say you didn't put much effort in this post at all.

We came to this website to laugh at retards. You've provided the stupidity, we provide the ridicule.

 

[エボラちゃん]

We came to this website to laugh at retards. You've provided the stupidity, we provide the ridicule.

But isn't Deep Thoughts about trying to have constructive discussion? I can understand that you don't like the topic of the thread because it offends you or you think it's stupid. I just don't understand why you'd feel so invested in discrediting the discussion I'm trying to have. What do you gain from calling me an idiot? All I see is user derailing a thread that you could just ignore.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

So according to you, I need qualification to say: Christianity is divided between different cult that are distributed across different countries in Europe?
Western xenophilia is factually observable, maybe it's a genetic predisposition but I have yet to see studies being made on that.
The gist of your post is to call me illiterate and ignore the entire premise of my post.
You know people who reason like this? Demagogue and midwits who needs appeal to authority to validate themselves.
I appreciate the reply but I must say you didn't put much effort in this reply at all.

Let me ask you a few questions:
When did the Roman Empire adopt Christianity?
When did the East-West schism occur?
When did the Franks allign with Rome?
How did contemporary Romans view "East" vs "West" Rome prior to the aforementioned schism?

 

[エボラちゃん]

Let me ask you a few questions:
When did the Roman Empire adopt Christianity?
When did the East-West schism occur?
When did the Franks allign with Rome?
How did contemporary Romans view "East" vs "West" Rome prior to the aforementioned schism?

>313 CE
>1054
Frankish Empire?
>481 AD
What point are you attempting to make relative to OP?

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

>313 CE
>1054
Frankish Empire?
>481 AD
What point are you attempting to make relative to OP?

This movement you are accusing of "dividing Europe" managed not only to keep it together for over 700 years, but introduce more under the same ideology. We can mention the Visigoths as well.

Now do some reading as to why the East-West schism took place. Protip: it had little to do with actual theological disputes and almost everything to do with a corrupt Roman emperor pestering the pope to do his bidding. It was politically motivated.

Christianity didn't divide Europe. The Romans did.

 

[Str8Bustah]

This movement you are accusing of "dividing Europe" managed not only to keep it together for over 700 years, but introduce more under the same ideology. We can mention the Visigoths as well.

Now do some reading as to why the East-West schism took place. Protip: it had little to do with actual theological disputes and almost everything to do with a corrupt Roman emperor pestering the pope to do his bidding. It was politically motivated.

Christianity didn't divide Europe. The Romans did.

Everyone always forgets that the Filioque first showed up in a random parish in Spain as an attempt at stopping the Arian heresy from re-emerging, then was pushed to the pope by Charlemagne.

It actually took a while for things to fully settle in, but what sealed the deal was a mixture of the Pope being far too big-headed and a single German Cardinal being extremely autistic in how he tried to engage with the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning papal supremacy.

If the Pope had been more humble and the Cardinal had been less autistic, Rome would have potentially resolved it's issues and would still be in communion with the Church today, but here we are in the modern era.

 

[エボラちゃん]

This movement you are accusing of "dividing Europe" managed not only to keep it together for over 700 years, but introduce more under the same ideology. We can mention the Visigoths as well.

Now do some reading as to why the East-West schism took place. Protip: it had little to do with actual theological disputes and almost everything to do with a corrupt Roman emperor pestering the pope to do his bidding. It was politically motivated.

Christianity didn't divide Europe. The Romans did.

Ok first off I must say that I appreciate the effort you've made to address a fragment of OP. You've outdone previous posters so I'll grant you that. Asking me to read more is yet again a pedantic insult you could have saved yourself from uttering.
700 years? Maybe, I guess I'll have to read a book! Maybe you can recommend me some?
I want to emphasize that I'm appreciative of your reply but it is an autistic nitpick that ignore most of the OP.
Edit:
If you don't mind, I would appreciate if you could explain why the Romans were the cause of European division.
(No essay needed!)

 

[Str8Bustah]

Ok first off I must say that I appreciate the effort you've made to address a fragment of OP. You've outdone previous posters so I'll grant you that. Asking me to read more is yet again a pedantic insult you could have saved yourself from uttering.
700 years? Maybe, I guess I'll have to read a book! Maybe you can recommend me some?
I want to emphasize that I'm appreciative of your reply but it is an autistic nitpick that ignore most of the OP.
Edit:
If you don't mind, I would appreciate if you could explain why the Romans were the cause of European division.

For starters, you should go and read 'The Orthodox Church' by Bishop Kallistos Ware. It's got a very lengthy segment on the history surrounding the early Church and the schism between East and West which presents a perspective that you won't typically find in most Western academic sources.

 

[Penis Drager 2.0]

Everyone always forgets that the Filioque first showed up in a random parish in Spain as an attempt at stopping the Arian heresy from re-emerging, then was pushed to the pope by Charlemagne.

It actually took a while for things to fully settle in, but what sealed the deal was a mixture of the Pope being far too big-headed and a single German Cardinal being extremely autistic in how he tried to engage with the Ecumenical Patriarchate concerning papal supremacy.

If the Pope had been more humble and the Cardinal had been less autistic, Rome would have potentially resolved it's issues and would still be in communion with the Church today, but here we are in the modern era.

Ok first off I must say that I appreciate the effort you've made to address a fragment of OP. You've outdone previous posters so I'll grant you that. Asking me to read more is yet again a pedantic insult you could have saved yourself from uttering.
700 years? Maybe, I guess I'll have to read a book! Maybe you can recommend me some?
I want to emphasize that I'm appreciative of your reply but it is an autistic nitpick that ignore most of the OP.
Edit:
If you don't mind, I would appreciate if you could explain why the Romans were the cause of European division.
(No essay needed!)

Here's the punchline:
The Pope had no particular interest in canonizing the filioque. Pope Benedict VIII just owed Henry II a little rub'n'tug for getting him back on the papal throne.

 

[Str8Bustah]

Here's the punchline:
The Pope had no particular interest in canonizing the filioque. Pope Benedict VIII just owed Henry II a little rub'n'tug for getting him back on the papal throne.

It gets doubly more stupid when you consider that a not insignificant amount of modern Catholic hierarchs have all but considered completely getting rid of the Filioque. Granted this won't completely mend the schism as there's a bunch of other heresies which need to be resolved, but hey, it's something.