Start a pagan book club?

[JamesBond007]

Sure, everyone who says anything that upsets your worldview is biased, and the resulting absence of evidence means you can jimmy whatever nonsense you feel like into history to make it fit your beliefset.

The people who tried the witches did not hide their motives. They wrote down how they tried them. You are, like Faklon, exhibiting ignorance on the subject matter. I am telling you, factually, they demanded suspects say the Lord's Prayer without stuttering, or attempted to see if they would float when thrown in a body of water or not, etc. You can cope however you like, that remains a fact.

History is chronotopic the opposite of science and philosophy. Philosophy and science deal with general 'truths' and history is biased. You think you something is a fact that many centuries years ago ? You can't compare handwriting to a dead man but can analyze the handwriting of an alive man.

Was Richard the III a villain/monster or a hero ? You don't know for sure sure. It is amazing that humans say they know anything besides pure mathematics is true.

A scientific 'truth' and philosophical 'truth' can can change especially the former.

If you want truth that does not change you can only find it at the end of a correct chain of mathematical argument and I don't mean applied math per se, either.

Coffee taste like tea when I have a cold, glass feels like marble underwater, I once saw a dead colleague walk by my window on a rainy day.

If we are fishing on a boat and we see a house and I ask you what color it is the answer would not be something such as 'white' but that it appears white from one side.

[Longbowman]

-

So the first three battles you googled, which were all very big, major battles in the pre-Medieval era - NOT 'the average Medieval battle' - still had nowhere close to 50k killed. You are proving my point, yet think you are proving your point. Curious!

As for the rest: if the Pope's word mattered so much, why was it ignored by so many? QED either the Pope approve or the Church ignored, move on.

The issue here is not that I have a bone to pick with the Church, which I credited for civilising Northern and Eastern Europe in my first post, but that I'm not willing to agree with your dick-sucking assessment about how it was a pure force for good that civilised the entire continent. You on the other hand are immune to nuance, as proven by your screaming about how 'the Church did good things' as if I hadn't already specifically enumerated several such things, because for you it is a zero-sum game. As you are completely unable to prove me wrong, you are now screaming 'butthurt' (which is in this case pure projection) and pretending I have used even a single ad-hominem, which I have not - so perhaps it is simply the case you don't understand what an ad-hom is.

And Britain was a prosperous and civilised entity before the Saxons ruined it.

[Faklon]

So the first three battles you googled, which were all very big, major battles in the pre-Medieval era - NOT 'the average Medieval battle' - still had nowhere close to 50k killed. You are proving my point, yet think you are proving your point. Curious!

As for the rest: if the Pope's word mattered so much, why was it ignored by so many? QED either the Pope approve or the Church ignored, move on.

The issue here is not that I have a bone to pick with the Church, which I credited for civilising Northern and Eastern Europe in my first post, but that I'm not willing to agree with your dick-sucking assessment about how it was a pure force for good that civilised the entire continent. You on the other hand are immune to nuance, as proven by your screaming about how 'the Church did good things' as if I hadn't already specifically enumerated several such things, because for you it is a zero-sum game. As you are completely unable to prove me wrong, you are now screaming 'butthurt' (which is in this case pure projection) and pretending I have used even a single ad-hominem, which I have not - so perhaps it is simply the case you don't understand what an ad-hom is.

And Britain was a prosperous and civilised entity before the Saxons ruined it.

1) In the last battle there are more than 60k

2) Because people stop following the Pope, witch-hunting was perdominately a Protestant practise

3) There wasn't any relevant civilization bar the Mediterranean shores of France and Spain neither. Slavs/Easterners weren't as hard to Christianize as Northwesterners. Pre-Christian Britain was as Roman as Congo is French if not less. As a matter of fact, pagan Roman emperors used to hunt British druids.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudius

He expelled foreign astrologers, and at the same time rehabilitated the old Roman soothsayers (known as haruspices) as a replacement. He was especially hard on Druidism, because of its incompatibility with the Roman state religion and its proselytizing activities.[45]

You can't make a civilized society with uneducated plebs. Christianity helped on that by appointing priests as tutors.

4) People see their enemies as demons since antiquity, e.g. 70 years ago they saw jews as rats. Christianity can't change human nature but it certainly helped in relevant advancements.

5) Ad-hominem

semi-literate dunce

Try hard Longobowmanid

[Loki]

Sure, everyone who says anything that upsets your worldview is biased, and the resulting absence of evidence means you can jimmy whatever nonsense you feel like into history to make it fit your beliefset.

The people who tried the witches did not hide their motives. They wrote down how they tried them. You are, like Faklon, exhibiting ignorance on the subject matter. I am telling you, factually, they demanded suspects say the Lord's Prayer without stuttering, or attempted to see if they would float when thrown in a body of water or not, etc. You can cope however you like, that remains a fact.

I'm wondering if you can say the Lord's prayer without stuttering...

[Longbowman]

I'm wondering if you can say the Lord's prayer without stuttering...

I don't know the Lord's Prayer at all.

[Longbowman]

God you're a stupid man.

1) In the last battle there are more than 60k

Yeah but it took place before the Medieval period and Livy's exaggerations are not accepted by most modern historians, so, incorrect x2.

2) Because people stop following the Pope, witch-hunting was perdominately a Protestant practise

A lot of Catholics burnt witches, but it was disproportionately Protestant: regardless, when did I divide things into subdivisions? I already noted witch-hunting was rare in southern Europe.

You are shifting the goalposts. I said 'Christianity,' you are now attempting to divorce Protestantism from Christianity, and Loki, a Protestant, is thumbing you up because he hasn't bothered to read your post.

3) There wasn't any relevant civilization bar the Mediterranean shores of France and Spain neither. Slavs/Easterners weren't as hard to Christianize as Northwesterners. Pre-Christian Britain was as Roman as Congo is French if not less. As a matter of fact, pagan Roman emperors used to hunt British druids.

They hunted druids in those areas which still had them but not beyond the 1st century. As I stated, southern Britain was largely Romanised by the coming of Christianity; in some cases this involved the syncretisation of the pre-Roman Celtic Gods, for example at Bath.

4) People see their enemies as demons since antiquity, e.g. 70 years ago they saw jews as rats. Christianity can't change human nature but it certainly helped in relevant advancements.

Again this is simply irrelevant. My argument was 'Christianity did some bad things.' Your argument is REEE NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and now trying to pretend like I said 'Christianity was nothing but bad' because you can't fucking read. For the fifth time: in my initial post, I credited Christianity for civilising north and east Europe.

5) Ad-hominem

Ad-hominem is not synonymous with insult, so, I was correct: you don't know what an ad-homonem is.

An ad-hominem is an attack on the person in lieu of an argument; I have made many arguments, you have refuted none.

Ironically, you accuse me of bias, butthurt, etc: what has happened it, you and the rest of the reactionary Christian crew have shit your pants because I said something not entirely adulatory about Christianity as a whole.

[Faklon]

God you're a stupid man.



Yeah but it took place before the Medieval period and Livy's exaggerations are not accepted by most modern historians, so, incorrect x2.



A lot of Catholics burnt witches, but it was disproportionately Protestant: regardless, when did I divide things into subdivisions? I already noted witch-hunting was rare in southern Europe.

You are shifting the goalposts. I said 'Christianity,' you are now attempting to divorce Protestantism from Christianity, and Loki, a Protestant, is thumbing you up because he hasn't bothered to read your post.



They hunted druids in those areas which still had them but not beyond the 1st century. As I stated, southern Britain was largely Romanised by the coming of Christianity; in some cases this involved the syncretisation of the pre-Roman Celtic Gods, for example at Bath.



Again this is simply irrelevant. My argument was 'Christianity did some bad things.' Your argument is REEE NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and now trying to pretend like I said 'Christianity was nothing but bad' because you can't fucking read. For the fifth time: in my initial post, I credited Christianity for civilising north and east Europe.



Ad-hominem is not synonymous with insult, so, I was correct: you don't know what an ad-homonem is.

An ad-hominem is an attack on the person in lieu of an argument; I have made many arguments, you have refuted none.

Ironically, you accuse me of bias, butthurt, etc: what has happened it, you and the rest of the reactionary Christian crew have shit your pants because I said something not entirely adulatory about Christianity as a whole.

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

That's exactly what you are doing, you haven't provided a single source.

Now you are trying to turn Loki against me and some stupid arguments like "Roman battles weren't medieval", like it would make a difference.

Quite merchantile mate, but boring and time-consuming.

Try harder

[Longbowman]

That's exactly what you are doing, you haven't provided a single source.

Ad hom is this: 'you are stupid, therefore you are wrong.'

What I wrote was: 'you are stupid. Also, you are wrong and here's why.'

The fact your English isn't good enough to figure out that's what the paragraph you quoted says (ie, it supports me, not you, again) is not my problem.

Now you are trying to turn Loki against me and some stupid arguments like "Roman battles weren't medieval", like it would make a difference.

This entire 'battle' thing is your deviation. You tried to mitigate the death count by incorrectly assessing 50k as the 'average amount of deaths in a medieval battle.' As I originally said, this is a ridiculous and worthless point to make, AND it's wrong.

You then tried to prove it wasn't wrong by quoting battles from well before the Medieval period and claim victory. I pointed out that

a) the battles were not medieval
b) Livy lies, and this is well-known to anyone with even a cursory understanding of Roman historiography

and you're bawwwwing because you have no comeback. What next? You remind me 20,000 people died on day 1 of the Somme, QED witch-hunts ain't no thang?

TLDR: you're wrong and it's irrelevant anyway.

Quite merchantile mate, but boring and time-consuming.

Nope, you just don't have anything else left to say (except 'JEW!'), but your ego is too big to just shut up. That's why you response (ineffectually) whenever you think that maybe, just maybe you might be able to argue the point, but then quietly drop all the sub-points even your tiny brain realises you got curbstomped on.

Why don't low-IQ people ever realise that saying 'well I'm BORED now HAHA' is really fucking transparent? You'd look cooler if you just left the convo. You'd still have lost, but you'd look cooler.

But hey, if it really, truly is that boring and time-consuming, prove me wrong and fuck off.

Try harder

Cope.

[catgeorge]

Church of Satan

The founder and writer of Satanic Bible - Anton Lavey was a Jew.

[Forestspark]

4th Branch of Mabinogion

- Moch and loch? A connection... Guess not looked connected moch... means pig, dirty lazy drunk. Loch just means lake in Scottish Gaelic... and the photograph of the loch Ness monster just looks like a duck with a long neck tbh, dont know what people were seeing at the time( 1930s) you can even see a beak if you look closely. Also the tale dates to 565 AD, so Im not sure if this comes from pre Christian sources

- In this story out of the four, its the only ones that references wands... I have to wonder as a magical concept when did wands originate. But it seems since the Cognitive Revolution of 60,000 BC when humans developed imagination I can see with cave dwellers using fire felt powerless, and felt magic gave them a “light”.

- I liked the Mabinogion so far very underrated but the last story just kind of meanders. Least favourite of the four.