[Poll] India or Pakistan?

[Óttar]

Hindus worship rats?

People are retarded. Many Westerners and Abrahamites point to Hindus' veneration of animals as proof of their barbarism, but thinking more deeply, it is a reflection of Hindu theology which does not make a strict demarcation between Creator and Creation. Everything is holy; permeated with the Divine. In Abrahamism, we see what this strict distinction between Creator and creation has wrought. Our disrespect for the Earth has led to the endangerment of Earth's ecosystems and the very survival of organized human life as we know it.

[Anthony PV]

Only because you are used to weird, mannish women. The fact is that women naturally love babies. Women artists are generally known for drawing mothers and babies.

Women loving babies is one thing. Women making an obsession about how babies look is another.

As for the rats...
Oh ho ho! You don't know?
https://youtu.be/2OOs1l8Fajc

Hmm... That seems an interesting way to test your immune system...

[JMack]

There is no reason to think of 'What ifs." We know that Christians have more babies, though. And ultimately, that's what matters.

LOL

What a hypocrite, why don't you tell your pagan friend to not call me a sandnigger and a desert boy.

I didn't called you sandnigger, don't lie. I said desert religions were pure sandnigger barbarity.

I did called you ''desert boy'' because you follow a desert cult. You started with aggressive rethoric anyway.

[Nazarene]

You can't actually defeat this with a rational argument, so you resort to name calling. How mature.



Apologists claim that Christianity brought writing to Northern Europe (like you said it took Christians to record "pagan" myths), but Christianity is unnecessary for the civilizing of the barbarians. It was Romanitas that led to the civilizing of European peoples, not Christianity per se. If Rome had remained "pagan", who is to say the Germanic and insular Celtic tribes would not have been civilized still?

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

[Nazarene]

LOL



I didn't called you sandnigger, don't lie. I said desert religions were pure sandnigger barbarity.

I did called you ''desert boy'' because you follow a desert cult. You started with aggressive rethoric anyway.

Is this supposed to make what you said any less ok or less aggressive? People like you need to be responded to with scorn because you think you can step on Christians with no backlash.

[Óttar]

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

Yes, but the logic of "pagan" religions, and I'm speaking about the syncretism of classical and Hellenistic antiquity, was such that if Greeks or Romans conquered another people they would merely blend their pantheons with those of the people they conquered, not completely destroy the cult-sites and cults of the vanquished. As a matter of fact, if they conquered foreign peoples, they were more likely to introduce foreign cults to their own culture. In a Romanized fashion, but they still allowed the cults of Isis, Cybele, etc. to persist.

[Nazarene]

Yes, but the logic of "pagan" religions, and I'm speaking about the syncretism of classical and Hellenistic antiquity, was such that if Greeks or Romans conquered another people they would merely blend their pantheons with those of the people they conquered, not completely destroy the cult-sites and cults of the vanquished. As a matter of fact, if they conquered foreign peoples, they were more likely to introduce foreign cults to their own culture. In a Romanized fashion, but they still allowed the cults of Isis, Cybele, etc. to persist.

Yes, I completely agree here, the involuntary wiping of history/culture/religion is not what I am for. If the claim is true that Christians destroyed pagan temples en masse then I do condemn it. But they (Rome) wouldn't let Christians continue to exist, because our allegiance was not to Rome but to God first. That's my main problem.

[JMack]

They subjugated these people through horrible and immoral amounts of force, that being said I do think that it is equally horrible if Christians did the same. Also, I don't consider pagan Rome to be more civilized or more moral than Christianity, for entertainment they threw people into an arena to fight to the death. As for the writings, they Romans were less concerned about the paganistic rituals of Europe as they were their own religion and power in the region.

A lot of things you wrote are untrue. ''Paganism'' isn't an unified religion but a name invented by Christians after Teodosius to designate the Native European and Near Eastern religions in the countryside, that's why they were called ''paganus''.

In the book ''The Price of Monotheism'' anthropologist Jan Assmann argue that before Jewish monotheism there was a common semantic denominator in all religions of the Mediterranean basin and also in ''folk'' beliefs from Northern and Central Europe. That's why the ''interpretatio'' was possible to begin with.

And Catherine Nixey in the book I quoted some pages before argue that much of the so called ''persecution'' of Christians was an exaggeration of early Christians to consolidate their power. Romans rarely persecuted anyone due to religious reasons.

Is this supposed to make what you said any less ok or less aggressive? People like you need to be responded to with scorn because you think you can step on Christians with no backlash.

You insulted me out of nowhere and I didn't had disrespected Christianity. I recognize its presence in European culture for thousands of years and any new paganism arising should integrate Christian popular mythology and folk beliefs (many of them are based on pagan motifs anyway).

Actually Christianity carry the seeds of its own destruction due to being a historiological religion, in which the sacred is immanentized and the historical events are imbued with transcendent meaning. It's what Mircea Eliade called ''Theophany of History'' and the birth of the secular materialistic world is largely to be blamed on Christianity.

There's no need of ''secularism'' in non-Abrahamic cultures because they don't have the exclusivistic and historicistic outlook Christianity or Islam have.

[Mingle]

People are retarded. Many Westerners and Abrahamites point to Hindus' veneration of animals as proof of their barbarism, but thinking more deeply, it is a reflection of Hindu theology which does not make a strict demarcation between Creator and Creation. Everything is holy; permeated with the Divine. In Abrahamism, we see what this strict distinction between Creator and creation has wrought. Our disrespect for the Earth has led to the endangerment of Earth's ecosystems and the very survival of organized human life as we know it.

In the video, the guy explicitly states they worship rats and considers rats as a form of the goddess (see 0:44).

Not that I think that's a bad thing anyways. It's not like they're hurting anyone by worshiping/venerating rats.

[Nazarene]

You insulted me out of nowhere and I didn't had disrespected Christianity. I recognize its presence in European culture for thousands of years and any new paganism arising should integrate Christian popular mythology and folk beliefs (many of them are based on pagan motifs anyway).

This is better than calling me a desert boy and a follower of a "sandnigger" religion. I'm glad that you recognize Christianity in some way.

As for your earlier points, I am aware that pagans are not unified it's just an umbrella term. I agree that we do take a exclusivitic and historicistic view in regards to our faith.

You are clearly much more knowledgable than me in a lot of areas and I respect that. Thanks for the references, I'll try to read some of the copies myself.