Dear Pagans, please be respectful as I am respectful and answer the following questions:

>no one in charge of them all to tell who was right

It's not a bug, it's a feature.People back then especialy greeks and romans were very relucant to allow someone to hold such power.
Look at the current pope and you can see they had a point.

very good analysis. many Christians should take you as an example.

I especially like how there Greek philosophers who said that poets like Homer, Hesiod or Archilochos should have been beaten for their poems.

The Greeks had many religious practises which were subhuman, on the other hand temples would also be used for training boxing, for documents, etc.

Christianity, being judaism derivative hates one thing the most. The nature. Jews were told they're the chosen ones, and yet every confrontation they've had with anybody they fought since the times of Solomon until 1947 just waltzed over them killing them in hundreds of thousands if not millions.

The nature clearly dictates that there are the strong and the weak, the overmen and undermen. The jews were and to a large degree are the weak.

Pagans on the other hand literally worship nature in all its cruelty and wilderness. The cult of strength is morally repulsive for any jew or Christian, but for pagans it is natural state of being.

All our problem come from the ideas that men were made equal and the worship of the weak. You can rave on about how egalitarianism is not Christian(it is), but it doesn't change the fact that practically every sect or split of it acknowledges it as well as worships the meek or the weak.

Attached: 1527173476403.jpg (959x1200, 161K)

Civic nationalism was invented by the anti-Christian French revolutionaries.
Christian Zionism was invented by American Protestants.

>Pagans on the other hand literally worship nature in all its cruelty and wilderness.
This is factually incorrect, Roman and Babylonian Paganism identify the wilderness as an object of natural evil that needed to be destroyed and usurped. For example the Aeneid was extremely unpopular with northern pagan barbarians for being "anti enviromental" and "anti nature" babylonian paganism was popular with Romans but very unpopular with northern pagans because the bulk majority of their writings are about the Gods literally destroying the wilderness chopping down every tree, killing every wild animal, drastically changing the natural landscape to suit the comforts of kings and cities, this was very Roman as well but they had more focus on farming which was a form of also dominating the wilderness.

One of the highest positions in Roman Paganism, the High Priest of Jupiter was forbidden from life from leaving the city of Rome, this is why most historians believe Julius Caesar was never fully initiated into the priesthood when he had to leave as a young man.

well looking at Christian Kingdoms like the Byzantines its obvious that no value was given to ethnicity.

Byzantines are called Greeks even though almost no Emperor was Greek.

For the Romans and Babylonians the Farm and the City were HOLY but wilderness was the natural enemy of man, and it really shows in their city planning

Attached: 1447459274246.jpg (1000x690, 257K)

>Civic nationalism was invented by the anti-Christian French revolutionaries.

Attached: 1519077829471.png (1001x679, 347K)

does the same apply to Greeks?

I thought even Med paganism was about respecting nature, but you are correct when saying that these people attributed every evil thing to the Gods.

With the Greeks oh it was more of a mix, there were nature/wilderness cults like with Artemis and some of her believers, lots of stuff with Posoidon but you had some greeks that viewed nature as the enemy, they were less conformed to one ideal in general with their religion as they were with the rest of their culture and politics. Romans liked to be of one mind

The pagan religions are tied to regional identity. There are exceptions such as the Romans who deliberately practiced syncretism for the sake of unifying all the empire's peoples, but in skandinavia you worship the norse gods, in Greece you worship the greek gods, in Egypt you worship the Egyptian gods and no one expects foreign people to worship anything other than their ethnic gods or feel that their specific dogma is so superior to all others that they are on a divine mission to convert the rest of the world to their form of worship. When the mongols conquered most of Eurasia they did not give two shits about anyone's religion because they knew they had their religion and everyone else had theirs and they could continue doing whatever it was they were doing as long as they were loyal to the empire. Just like the religions of separate peoples don't mix it kind of goes without saying that it should not be expected for these peoples to mix.

Heck, even your religion started out like this. In the old Testament Yahwe was originally the tribal god of the Jews who squares off against eg. the gods of the Egyptians to demonstrate his superiority and later once the Israelites have settled in Canaan it goes without saying that the Israelites have their God and everyone else has theirs with the primary concern being purging corruption and heresy from you own people (which, btw., shall one day rule the world) while disregarding whatever the hell everyone else is doing and if you want to become an Israelite you better really want to because Yahwe smacked down a bunch of rules and insisted you cut the tip of your dick off, to ensure that converts really truely wanted to become part of the nation. The High Priests from the tribe of Levi are not even allowed to marry outside the tribe specifically to keep their bloodline pure.

>respecting nature
Well "respect" means different things to different cultures. To leave it alone in the Roman mind would be "why aren't you making this wilderness submit to you it's full of poison ivy and bugs, DESTROY IT ALL or be ungrateful for the valuable land you can take and reap it's resources of of.

If anything Rome and Babylon certainly showed their results, although the enviromental consequences of their deforestation and mining practices have been literally complained about for centuries

Then why isn't Diana an evil goddess? Or Faunus ?

Checked

First of all, pagans nothing but closet-atheists like varg, so lets refer to them as that.

Secondly, pagans have been the most pro-multicultural/racial type of people in the world. The roman empire in its pagan peak was diverse as fuck.
And Gauls/vikings often traded with niggers/muslims, and often came home with pregnant nigger-thrells.

Paganism is not pro-white at all, its just a meme

Attached: Varg4.png (899x525, 330K)

>Pagans on the other hand literally worship nature in all its cruelty and wilderness. The cult of strength is morally repulsive for any jew or Christian, but for pagans it is natural state of being.

Do you believe in evolution? I love to watch lectures by anthropologist Stanislav Drobyshevsky. He argues that kindness in humans is natural, and it is universal. Our ancestors evolved as “moral primates”, and small fangs and neb are the proof.

Baboons, on the other hand evolved as Nietzschean fascist, and it was so effective actually, that they stopped evolving, and did not develop a large brain.

In other words, Nietzscheanism, “trample the weak” and all of this sort is a new invention. Vast majority of religions and moral codes all across the world tell its followers to be kind, passionate, to help the weak.

To say that all this was invented by “Cuckxtianity” is a big fat lie, or a delusion. It is actually normal human behaviour.

Attached: e7sgd020ew501.png (1200x675, 728K)

There's a difference between groundskeeping and farming and the wilderness. Groundskeepers would kill all the bugs, de weed the landscape create articial praries and fake rivers to draw in deer, it wasn't "pure untamed wilderness" it was like a forest garden where deer were purposely drawn in, and agricutultural and the "countryside" aka farming and ranching were seen as a way of dominating the wilderness, if you've been to the wilderness and then been to a farm you know what I mean. So there's a difference in perspective here, also Diana was more the goddess of girls before reaching womanhood than anything else

>but you had some greeks that viewed nature as the enemy
I'm sure you don't, but if you have any available source at this time, it would be appreciated.

>less conformed to one ideal
they would kill each other without mercy over a tiny plot of land lol

understood

well both Artemis and Apollo killed people they did not like, depending on their mood.

Paganism has always been about accepting both evil and good parts of nature, which is why meat was shared with the community and women were flogged at a festival.

>source
Literally all of ancient Greek history, seriously they could never agree on literally anything at all. So yes there would be lots of arguments over those things and there were as they argued with everything on their religion, even the things they agreed on.

>depending on their mood
The Roman perspective was that Apollo and Diana were just and the Greeks were just been edgey salty faggots that deserved it for being typically edgey Greeks.

Attached: 1449294041139.jpg (193x250, 13K)

this is a meme.

The reality is that neither Christianity nor Paganism valued race that much.

Athens had laws that outlawed even half Athenians of participating in politics.
Spartans were keen on procreating with each other and in general most pagan peoples were quite autistic about heritage even if they were mixed.

Romans were a special case, because they were of mixed origin (Italic and Greek). They only extended citizenship to other Italics after brutal wars, but it was Caesar who started with giving citizenship to non Romans.

>He argues that kindness in humans is natural, and it is universal.
while I do believe in evolution, I dont think kindness is inherently natural.

To me kindness is more of a weak pushing his fears onto the strong.

Killing and stealing also fundumentally weaken a society, which is why it was banned inside the community but against enemies it was completely fine.

>romans were Greek
Oh stop with this meme we don't need another faggot like Julian the Apostate who also asserted such rediculous things

/thread
>Jow Forums is a NatSoc board
this one sentence is /comfy/ in so many ways

Attached: cheeky pint 1.jpg (435x658, 88K)

Both Diana and Faunus are always associated with wilderness. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Most Gods killed people they did not like, depending on their mood.

You don't know what I'm talking about.

and here we return to the disagreements Greeks had.

to some both of these Gods were just aswell. However early myths are quite clear in portraying both as hotheaded children.

note I never said that they were Greeks and neither did any of the 2 peoples associate with each other.

that some Romans had Greek accentry (among other is a fact though). I don't recall which family it was but it may have been the Aemiliani who claimed descend from Pythagoras.

Paganism has never valued race (At all). Its only neo-paganism of nazi-larpers that have turned it into that.

Christianity/bible is actually anti-multiracial societies. Jesus created every race separated from each other for a reason. He dont want us to mix, and he refers to that in several verses

Attached: Bible_Race.jpg (1200x273, 39K)

Attached: Bible_Race2.jpg (1200x200, 28K)

In Roman language and mythology there are several different categories of forests each with a different designation and purpose you'd have to clarify since it can get complicated very easily. Praying to Diana in Roman eyes could be "Help me get through this Silva to find this stupid deer" or "Help me stupid groundskeeper to get me Nemus right so I can get this deer" or "Help me get out of this Lucus becaus I know I shouldn't be here"

>What is Tower of Babel
Paul also blasted Jewish Christians for disliking goyim.

>Paganism has never valued race
this is wrong and reeks of someone who has no idea about pagan societies.

tell me, why were Greeks so autistic about who could participate in the Olympics even though it was known that they were mixed from the start.

>But there are similarities
But there are also more differences and argumetns in Greek paganism than Roman paganism. Greeks argued way more about "correct interpretation" than Romans did, Romans didnt like to read Greeks were book fags

They "believe" in it to have some religion to align with thier political inclinations
They are atheist at heart, real pagans live in the woods like witches

>some Romans had Greek ancestry
Romans came from Troy, unless you are talking about Greek women who had Roman mothers, for Greeks and Romans the kid would take on the nationality of the father not the mother, and with Troy it would only be technically correct if their Trojan ancestor just happened to be a Greek living in Troy that sided with the Trojans which is possible but then people will want to talk about the Danites and all tat

Civic nationalism and being united under one monarch are two different things.

such an amazing way of life.

Isn't it fascinating how the Greeks thought their Gods were in constant competition with each other and this reflected on the Greeks aswell?

I have a theory that the main reason philosophy was so whidespread among Greeks is because they were all raised with competition in mind, driving them all to indirectly compete in philosophy like a bunch of autists.

It makes sense I agree

>What makes you believe that ancient pagan religions of Europe were “pro-white” (let's use this term for conveniency) and ethnocentric?
Records stating so.

>records?
Yes. Many records of the Germanics by Roman authors talk about their marital practices. They were against men marrying outside the tribe (Women refused out-group marriage and would reportedly kill themselves it forced into it). Tacitus, among others, talks about this.

> not to racemix?
The Rigsthula establishes two things through a dual commandment. In it Rig (aka Heimdallr) establishes three races of men; the "Black" thralls, the "Red" churls, and the "White" jarls. In the first of the two meanings of this, he's establishing the tripartite social order of Thralls (Laborers, serfs, and slaves), Churls (Free landowners and craftsmen), and Jarls (A military caste of warriors-priests). At some point in Germanic history for unknown reasons the Priestly and Warrior castes merged into one with the Worker caste splitting into two.

The second understanding of this, as understood by the Germanics (relayed to us by Scandinavian authors) is a very clear division of the world into three races: Fodder to be conquered (thralls), foreigners it's okay to interact with (churls), and the Germanics themselves (jarls). It's worth noting that under this understanding only Jarls (Germanics) can get into Valhalla and Folkvangr; non-Germanics (Racial thralls and racial churls) burn up on the bifrost if they try to cross it. Odin collects the ashes and puts it in the boots of bad children at Yule.

>clear imperatives simply do not exist.
Nope. Germanics are recorded as having a very strict moral system. The Havamal records much of this. The Germanics very much believed that their gods gave them very, very strict orders on how to live. Divination was used to find these orders, and the Germanics are recorded as refusing to do anything of importance without asking the gods what to do via divination.

>no argument
Ive already explained that pagans never valued race, and yes, I have studied paganism for hundreds of hours, all youve done is probably just watch videos of your larp-lord varg. Pagans were diverse as fuck, even scandinavian ones. Vikings traded fuckloads of nigger-thrells with africans. And I like how make an excuse about how "the romans was an unique case", because they werent, at all. The only reason why multiculutalism during that time wasnt a thing was because 99,99% of people were pigeonholed as fuck

Julius Caesar complained that the Germans were not very religious and only worshipped the Sun and Moon,. So it seems that Germanic paganism has changed a lot over the centuries

I re-read the source about the Greek origins of Romans. It was written by a bunch of Orthodox "Greeks" who usually use good sources.

However the only thing they really wrote, is that Romans were unclear about the origins of Sabines. Some claimed they were Arcadians, others claimed they belonged to Italy.

That doesn't change the fact they were good gods associated with wilderness.
How?

This is, of course, only talking about the Germanics. We know fuck all about the Celts and Slavs (not that that last bit stops Slavic neopagans of course). Part of the issue with answering these about the Greco-Romans is the Spartan Mirage; essentially all of what we have from Ancient Greece is either very old (Homer, Hesiod) or comes from Ionia (specifically, Athens). This means that a lot of it is tainted by Athenian views.

The Athenians are recorded as having been very insular and not "tolerant" at first, as were the Greeks. Both gladly accumulated allies (The Romans called them Socii) to use as cannon fodder in wars. Eventually, however, in both cases continuous friction would culminate in civil war, in which both cities integrated the foreigners.

Mind you, in Rome these "foreigners" are at first other Italians (and thus "White") and in Greece it's other Greeks (and thus "White"). Eventually in both cases, savvy politicians would realize they could essentially import voters (literally done with Phoenicians in Athens; Augustus instituted an entire priesthood based around foreign slaves he would order be manumitted if they became his political agents and agitators). Eventually, as both Athens and Rome continued to grow, their political establishments included increasing numbers of non-Whites (term used for convenience) which were integrated into the Empire.

The Greeks and Romans themselves never outmarried in large numbers, however, resulting in a scenario of the native stock essentially being surrounded by foreigners while remaining "untainted" by them.

I have given you plenty of sources which you did not adress, especially regarding Ancient Greeks.

I did. Read again

Here's the quote you should read it for yourself it's really informative, especially since he had to deal with germans personally for a decade and had even been in Germany

Gallic War 6.21
>The German way of life is very different. They have no druids to preside over matters related to the divine, and they do not have much enthusiasm about sacrifices. They count as gods only those phenomena that they can perceive and by whose power they are plainly helped, the Sun, Fire, and Moon; others they do not even know from hearsay.
He then goes on to explain that Germans lived in huts and never built civilization because they wanted to go Bear Grylls Survival

It's all about who the Father is

Well they did of course had gods associated with the wilderness but that's not the same as revering the wilderness

Attached: Julius Caesar.jpg (300x443, 33K)

>literally done with Phoenicians in Athens
interesting, any sauce?

Caesar didn't know what the fuck he was talking about when it came to the Germanics. Unless they changed radically in a single generation, Caesar was wrong. The Romans often had trouble holding Germania because the Germans would fight a battle, lose, and then their entire tribe would commit suicide, essentially starving the Romans of people to hold the land. The Romans could never establish settlements because all of the people they'd commit would die in battle or by hanging themselves.

The Spartans are another story. The Spartans ran what was basically a national socialist (not Nazi) ethnostate with two races: The Spartans, and the Helots. Helots were a Greco-whatever mixture. If you got enslaved by Spartans, you were a Helot. At first these Helots were Greeks, but over time Spartans bought slaves from wherever they could, leading them to be a big mystery meat soup. The Spartans, meanwhile, were disgusted by the notion of tainting their pure Spartan blood with foreigner mud. Spartan women, like Germanic women, were noted for being particularly reviled by the notion of race mixing (term used for convenience, even inter-Greek marriage was race mixing to the Spartans).

Whatever you think about their racial purity, their usage of the Helots as a slave race was a fucking terrible idea. Sparta could never establish any kind of long-term hold over anything outside of the borders of the city of Sparta because if the soldiers were away for too long the Helots would revolt.

Every Spartan military operation ends with either a quick Spartan victory or a Spartan retreat to go put down a Helot revolt.

>he didn't know
But you do because YOU have been to ANCIENT GERMANY FOR 10 YEARS UNLIKE JULUS FUCKING CAESAR

Attached: Iulius Caesar1.jpg (205x300, 17K)

Spartans were literally Jews, its in the bible

on another note, whats your take on human sacrifice in Greece and Rome?

what is your opinion on the retarded practises of Greeks (ritual flogging, ritual rape, etc.)

Sure they had cults that did that but it was generally not accepted by society at large historically but there were periods were it apparently gained influence and others where it waned, Romans were less likely to do it than Greeks, Romans thought the Greeks were edgey for it. Romans loved to hate the Greeks

well that is if you can even trust the (((sources)))

Spartans themselves never openly claimed a connection to Judeans.
Why should they care about an insignificant Kingdom

>Civic nationhood is a political identity built around shared citizenship within the state. Thus, a "civic nation" isn't defined by its language or culture, but by its political institutions and liberal principles, which its citizens pledge to uphold.

Monarchs on the other hand created multi-ethnic states for centuries, by simply conquering new lands without paying attention to who exactly polulate the newly conquered lands.

Well yes they did they never clained to be natural greeks they reveled in the fact that they were considered "outsiders"

Also the Jews thought gentiles were vastly inferior to them theyd never claim such a thing unlesss they thought it was true, you dont understand just how low they think of the goyim

Attached: 72643 s.jpg (187x200, 16K)

I believe it was Themistocles as he was the one who set the stage for Athenian naval supremacy. Essentially, Themistocles realized that the key to a strong navy was a huge population (Greek ships at the time used large numbers of rowers), so Themistocles made the ploy of making a fuck ton of ships, manumitting as many people as he could, and loading them onto the boats to work the navy.

It worked, and the Greeks stopped Persian invasion essentially keeping Western Civilization from being stillborn.

Athens lost a lot of men, however, particularly craftsmen (the navy was traditionally operated by slaves and poor craftsmen because of how much manual labor was required to operate a boat, so anyone of wealth and good breeding would operate as infantry or cavalry), so he put out word encouraging Phoenician craftsmen to migrate over. It's worth noting that at the time "Phoenician Craftsmen" would mean "Literally anyone from east of the Bosporus" so we have no idea how many were actually Phoenicians as opposed to a hodgepodge of Semites and assorted Indo-Europeans.

The entire pagan/Christian shitflinging situation is goddamned retarded and counterintuitive. Both are a major part of western civilization and deserve to be preserved

Attached: russian_commies_and_christianity.jpg (1960x2840, 735K)

i personally think it even supports it
there were 2 kind of gods in the germanic paganism wanen and asen
they married some of the other clan

haplogroup I the Nordic haplogroup comes from the middle east too

How is worshipping Pan, Silvanus
or Faunus not revering the wilderness?
>Absolutely fits the definition
>D-Doesn't count

It is not an evolution. Himmler was inspired by the Jesuit Order, but to say that the Jesuit Order evolved into the SS is the most retarded thing imaginable.

lol as if they were any natural Greeks. they were a mutt race. Makes me really wonder why they were so autistic about race.
as for the Spartans, the only thing I know is them beeing proud of their Doric ancestry.

ah I think I read that once. Thanks user.

Somebody needs jurisdiction over wilderness, it's like giving apollo jurisdiction over cheating in board games and plagues, the Romans might have felt the need to ask for an ebola outbreak or two teach those Greeks a leason.

>WE WUZ

Attached: 9674456231_1529bea776.jpg (346x500, 66K)

>well looking at Christian Kingdoms like the Byzantines its obvious that no value was given to ethnicity.
>Byzantines are called Greeks even though almost no Emperor was Greek.

>like the Byzantines
you realize the Byzantines are in a class of their own?
Why not cite Christian kingdoms like the North Sea Empire of Denmark?
or the Kingdom of Ireland?
or the Frankish kingdoms, all of whom fought wars to stave of ethno-religious foreigners.

>Byz are called Greeks
somewhat incorrectly
>almost no Emperor was Greek
let me stop you right there

Monarchs have conquered new lands and created multi-ethnic states throughout history, it is not a Christian thing. What exactly do I need to prove?

Long story short: Paganism centers around the idea of the wellbeing of a tribe. 'we are all children of god' Is a modern abrahamic idea.

In Yee olden days pagans where 'rasiss' to people from the next town over. So we can make the pragmatic assumption that they wouldn't be very welcoming to people of colour from a diverse background.

I live in the hillbilly part of the Netherlands and we have still a healthy distain for anybody that lives more then a few miles from our village. This phenomenon isn't really a thing in the Bible belt which only lies about 20 km from where I live.

>we are all children of god'
That's literally stated in Epictetus' discourses

Hi. Can't really answer your first question, but regarding moral imperatives, you might find this interesting:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphic_maxims

Yeah because Byzantium conquered so much new land like uh....
Also I'm pretty sure that's still pre French Revolution. How come it counts when France does it but not when Byzantium does it? Ironically France conquered more land than Byzantium.

kek

on another point, its the same as claiming Mardonius was Jewish, when no author made such claims.

I said that both Christians and Pagans did and did not care about ethinicity.

>Why not cite Christian kingdoms like the North Sea Empire of Denmark?
>or the Kingdom of Ireland?
>or the Frankish kingdoms, all of whom fought wars to stave of ethno-religious foreigners.
I remember reading that Central Europe was quite ethnocentric, but didn't the Visigoths mix with the local Iberians?

Did this not occur in places of Germanic migration as well?

Do you think that it was antithecial to Christianity?

>let me stop you right there
its true, the only one who may have been Greek was Constantine whose mother Helena was likely Greek. Chlorus was a Roman

>In Yee olden days pagans where 'rasiss' to people from the next town over. So we can make the pragmatic assumption that they wouldn't be very welcoming to people of colour from a diverse background.

It was the same in the Middle Ages, every villager believed that the ways and customs of his village were the best in the world, way better than in the next village. I don't think it is tied to Paganism.

1. Common White European sense
2. Common White European sense

>Paganism centers around the idea of the wellbeing of a tribe.
no it doesn't, that's neo-paganism. Ancient Pagans didn't have a concept of tribal consciousness or a well being of the tribe, they, as all humans in all times and places, had a conscious notion of familial well being. tribalism is projected onto pagans because we can not think of large groups of disconnected peoples. Except they were just that, large groups of disconnected peoples. The Arverni had internal conflict as much as they had external conflict, the same with the Suebi.
Those are tribes, not nations, not large cross region groups, those are small groups, sharing the region with other peoples, still fighting with eachother.
They'd only band together to get a leg up on someone else, not because of a common interest. It was survival of the strongest, unity is a very urban idea.

>'we are all children of god' Is a modern abrahamic idea.
that's not even an idea.
It's certainly not Abrahamic in the slightest either.
Most Muslims do not see it this way, Judaism is outright against it, and it would be easier to tell you the Christian sects that do say this.

>hillbilly Netherlands
non-existent, you niggers have roads. In West Appalachia we don't even have roads connecting our houses.
The Bible Belt in America is the only place where pseudo-Jim Crow still flies

>for we did not became dwellers in this land by driving others out of it, nor by finding it uninhabited, nor by coming together here a motley horde composed of many races; but we are of a lineage so noble and so pure that throughout our history we have continued in possession of the very land which gave us birth, since we are sprung from its very soil and are able to address our city by the very names which we apply to our nearest kin; for we alone of all the Hellenes have the right to call our city at once nurse and fatherland and mother.

>Because we are pure-blooded Greeks, unadulterated by barbarian stock. For there cohabit with us none of the type of Pelops, or Cadmus, or Aegyptus or Danaus, and numerous others of the kind, who are naturally barbarians though nominally Greeks.

>He appreciates it as the source of the seeds of being, descending upon his father, his fathers father - to every creature born and bred on earth, in fact,, but to rational beings in particular, since they alone are entitled by nature to govern alongside God, by virtue of being connected with him through reason. So why not call ourselves citizens of the world and CHILDREN OF GOD? Why should we fear any human contingency? If being related to the emperor or any of the other great ones at Rome is enough to live without fear, in privilege and security, shouldnt having God as our creator, father and defender protect us even more from trouble and anxiety?

>But when there is no need even to travel, when you are already there because Zeus is present everywhere in his works.

Discourses of Epictetus 1.9 and 1.6

Attached: Gaius_Iulius_Caesar_(Vatican_Museum).jpg (1890x3426, 641K)

>I remember reading that Central Europe was quite ethnocentric, but didn't the Visigoths mix with the local Iberians?
Visigoths didn't mix and were killed off.
When populations mix they typically take on the culture of the conquerors. Visigothic culture died in Iberia.

Greek is a culture, not an ethnicity.

What dumb peasants think isn't really important, what's important is what the educated think.

Educated Christians disagreed with the dumb peasants, educated Pagans* didn't.

*This is an important point because Pagan religions actually lack a lot of the theological backing that Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, and Confucianism/Taoism have. It's one thing to believe Zeus throws lightning at people who break Xenia, it's another thing to have a working metaphysical framework of why that occurs. This is where you get stuff like says. Plato is another example of this, where outright heretical stuff comes about to fill the gap.

Buddhism played a similar role in Japan when it came to Shinto.

Greek culture couldn't get so edgey and intellectual without Greeks

Attached: fabd9dab3f975bb218d5b3ed6dbcbd2e.jpg (744x744, 236K)

'Christianity merely revealed what the pagans had apprehended.'

Attached: CrossroadsTurn.jpg (2022x1906, 874K)

>Greek is a culture, not an ethnicity.
meh

Don't know if Greek really saw it that way.

Either way there were a group of people called Greeks and most of the Byzantines and modern Greeks are not like them.

Furthermore if you think that Byzantium and Orthodoxy are inherently Greek and similar to Ancient Greece be my guest.

"educated pagans" believed a single Creator God

from my understanding Greeks used Gods/God interchangebly.

>WE WUZ
Animals need to get off the internet

>we wuz
i have no idea what you are talking about

Well you know animals really are just that stupid

Surprise, a freed slave turned out to be a globalist.

>Visigoths didn't mix and were killed off.
What are you talking about? The Germanic peoples of the migration period typically adopted the culture of previous populations. In Iberia they got rid of separate laws for Visigoths and Romans, which means they most likely started to mix. The reconquista was began by Pelagius, Visigothic king of Asturias.

kek are you a schizo? a few posts we were talking about interesting things

>just a slave
That is stoic doctrine user. We had a few Roman Emperors who held to this