Tolkbros... Why Tolkien Hated the Roman Empire

I know what it means, I used to be a Nietzchian, but it is based off a nu-christian Protestant interpretation of the bible with their false translations.

Original greek texts

>also this is funny because Nietzsche was literally a professional scholar of ancient Greek and Latin texts
Yeah and being born into a German Protestant family I'm sure Nietzsche definitely for sure was not influenced at all by their "everything in the bible is 100% literal" teachings and instead seeked out an ancient Greek bible and judged it all from an Orthodox perspective.

I agree with everything here. Now explain how righteousness and making peace makes you a "slave".

Peacemaking doesn't = allowing yourself to become a slave/be killed.

"a time for war, and a time for peace"

I'm not Christian, but I don't think the pacifist/suicidal interpretation is necessarily the one Christians would agree with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html
>In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-does-the-bible-say-about-self-defense.html

"Turn the other cheek" seems to have a specific meaning in context, rather than a broad commandment to never defend yourself or others.

>Turn the other cheek is the broad commandment, the line on buying a sword has a very context specific meaning.
they both have a specific contextual meaning. I don't think there is any commandment to never defend one's self or others.

>Jesus says it unambiguously, you are not to resist evil.
that's been covered here

I'm not Christian, but I don't think the pacifist/suicidal interpretation is necessarily the one Christians would agree with.

https://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html
>In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-does-the-bible-say-about-self-defense.html

"Turn the other cheek" seems to have a specific meaning in context, rather than a broad commandment to never defend yourself or others.

In context, the "turn the other cheek" message seems to be about proportional responses and the danger of "repaying evil with evil" (vengeance)

>It’s important to note that by saying, “Do not resist an evil person,” Jesus is not requiring us to be pacifists or to never resist evil forces. In fact, James 4:7 and 1 Peter 5:9 command us to resist the devil and his evil practices. If a believer or his loved ones are threatened or attacked, it’s not wrong to take up a defense or to seek appropriate justice against the wrongdoer. What Jesus does require by commanding us not to resist an evil person is to not retaliate. We do not respond in kind, and we shouldn’t try to “get even.” And, when the offense is nothing more than a personal slight, we can ignore it altogether.
https://www.gotquestions.org/do-not-resist-an-evil-person.html
and
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/what-does-the-bible-say-about-self-defense.html

Elsewhere there are instructions to defend other people from evil and persecution, hard to do with only cheek-turning.

Others will have to answer you because I'm off to bed, but I suspect there is plenty in the both the new and old testaments about resisting evil. In fact, resisting evil seems to be the whole point of the religion.

This reading is contingent on disregarding the "but I say unto you that ye not resist evil" part and hyperfocusing on the colourful metaphor. In context it reads as a much more pacifistic message than most people will really want to accept.
Look at James 4:7 and 1 Peter 5:9 in context also
>Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
>Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
These specifically talk about a personal struggle with how the devil can take one from the righteous path. To resist Satan is to stay true to God, and as Jesus explained in the sermon on the mount you do not do that through violence.

Akcually you are both wrong, jesus offering his “other” cheek was simply him fricking with the rabbi. I forgot exactly but there is some cultural thing about using the other cheek/hand.
Basically jesus was forcing the rabbi to break his own rules, showing the rabi ‘s impotent rage. Jesus always non-violently fricked with people cause its more effective to create change

Yes, the ‘die by the sword’ comment is one of the ones used most widely out of context. At this point Jesus understood that he would have to die and resistance wouldn’t help, nor did he need incrimination as the crowd of priests demanded his death on a technicality out of spite. Plus he knew the disciples like Mark would have to survive to spread the word. That is why he told them to put away their swords

90% of Bible quotes are like one sentence taken out if context of a whole story. ‘Turn the other cheek’ as a saying is the same as ‘dig two graves if you want revenge’. Christians never have an obligation to suicidal, wasteful ‘martyrdom’ and killing in itself is not the same as murder, despite what some Prot denominations claim.

Buy a sword and defend yourself.

you're interpreting that as a prescriptive list of things a person should ideally be. Another interpretation is it is saying "all these people who are currently considered worthless by the prevailing morality of the day do, in fact, have worth."

>That's literally what it is though.
I'm not sure that is correct.

neetch hated the morality of the bible, not the literal cosmology of it. dostoyevsky and kierkegaard basically refuted him from the start tho on that

oh yeah I'm really drowning in innovation...that's why I'm still using windows 7 and playing 10 year old video games and movies/tv shows and using poorly implemented touchscreens on my mobile devices

>more innovation
Not true. The peak of per capita innovation was the late 1800s.
Innovation is rare these days. It's just same thing but slightly faster/bigger/smaller etc. or "same thing but now with lemon!"
Intelligence has also been dropping since the late 1800s.

>The car would have never been possible had combustion engines not progressively got smaller and more efficient
The car was innovation, but making combustion engines smaller and more efficient was incrementalism.
>Any invention is made possible by a litany of small, gradual innovations.
Yes, innovation needs incrementalism. They aren't mutually exclusive nor are they in opposition. I never said they were.

>incremental improvements to all manner of technology is not a dearth of innovation
Again, the existence of incrementalism does not necessarily preclude innovation. I'm not saying incremental improvement is "bad". They are not mutually exclusive and they aren't in opposition.
The difference between incrementalism and innovation is innovation breaks the mold and introduces entirely new concepts to be improved upon incrementally. It's a radical leap in a new direction rather than a few steps in the same direction.

>Pitting them against each other as if one is better than the other is like arguing about what's your favorite color is
That's what you've been doing and I've repeatedly said
>They are not mutually exclusive and they aren't in opposition.
>They aren't mutually exclusive nor are they in opposition. I never said they were.
in an attempt to get away from that.

>You are a moron.

Why wouldn’t you? The further you get along the more the people become degenerate and the rulers become despots. The Republic was good but people who simp for the Empire are legitimate morons that rest on the laurels of superficial stuff like architecture and legionnaires rather than the willing abandonment of humanity by its citizenry.

You’re expecting these idiots to be able to think rather than become willing slaves to a ‘benevolent’ dictator. When people are so lacking in agency/willpower and intelligence that they give themselves up to be slaves and praise their master for making decisions there’s no point in talking to them. They’ve willingly degraded themselves to a lesser citizenry and a lesser level of man.

Who told you killing, raping and stealing stopped with Christianisation?
Plus we're experiencing less killing, raping and stealing but more innovation now than ever before in history. Did atheism do that too?

We’re over a millennium away from Augustine pointing out that Rome fell due to its own failures, that their pagan religion was a crock of shit, and Christianity had little to do with barbarians sacking a defenseless city. Their contemporaries are still seething over it.

>The Republic was good
So dysfunctional it gave rise to the empire. Also, all of the elites were just as degenerate in the Republic as they were in the Empire. Hell, Sulla is supposed to be some paragon of Roman values and the dude ate drank and partied himself to death.

The funny thing is, eastern Rome was more Christian and didn't fall with the west instead lasting 1600 years the longest of any civilisation ever. Of course Byzantine history and Orthodoxy have been censored in the west for a reason.

The seat of power was already changing. Rome itself was degrading itself with debauchery and increasingly bloody and stupid political wars for power while Constantinople kept its head. Couple that with Constantinople being in an excellent geographical position and it was likely going to take over regardless. That being said Byzantium did have it’s moments of moronic infighting, even over Christianity, that ultimately doomed it, though by that point Rome was back to governable status and most of Europe was fine.

It is, it revolves itself around human desires and a problem-solving process which limits itself to the physical world, while buoying itself with Christian ethics without admitting it. You see atheism in non-western countries it looks pretty different

ok Richard

>Define "shithole".
A fricking shithole full of drug abusing third-world monkeys with zero culture or future, and an OBVIOUS cleptocratic system of government. America is a Potemkin country riding on the dying inertia leftover from when the place was predominantly White, and it's going to fade into nothing this century, in your lifetime.

>companies literally work their employees to death
>ex PM gets assassinated
>Otaku culture exists
>Economic bubble burst long ago and population stagnation
This is ignoring that Glorious Nippon. Has been an ‘ally’ (at best) of your third world Christian shithole for half a century and is dependent on them for security.

So you have no argument. Wake me when the Japanese government is perfectly okay with 12-year old girls shooting up fentanyl on Tiktok, as the highly christian American government clearly is.

You didn't make any salient point, you just think you did. The crime rate is non-existent over there. The standard of living is high. Public transportation works. Everything is affordable, and the food is nutritious. The government is inept, but not outright corrupt.

Juxtapose that to America where the country is corrupt to the core, the government is importing foreigners by the millions specifically to eliminate the natives and dilute their vote, inflation is making the currency worthless, and there's outright genocidal propaganda pumped out in nearly every medium. Most people living there under the age of 35 won't get married, have kids, or own a home.

You not liking anime or whatever the frick is not an argument. Japan is simply a better, functional country. America is literally about to tear itself apart and die, this century.

same thing