How the world would've been without Christianity?

>no dark ages
>no rape and pillage of peaceful nords
>we'd be in the space age colonizing distant stars
>I wouldn't have to get on sundays because mom wants me to go to church
>i'd still have my favorite drinking horn

Without Christianity, Islam would never have been invented either, so think on that.

Islam came from judaism, brainlet

No. Just because muslims had an iferiority complex, being the "youngest kid" and they therefore just claimed islam was the religion of adam, noah, abraham... doesn't make it factually true

>no relative "unification" of the european continet under one church; a feat that surpassed the roman empire
>no bastion of order and knowledge left in europe once rome collapses
>no civilising of the european barbarians mind through christian theology
>no chance of the scientific method being "invented" and refined in the west
>middle eastern civilizations conquer all of europe eventually

They literally consider Jesus a prophet

>muh Christian dark ages
Why won't this meme die

Dumbass

If Christianity didn't take hold then some other new eastern belief system would take over

The Jews would be in even more control.

we would be exploring space by now

HURR DURR

They believe Jesus Christ is coming again to kill the infidels.

>Yet the OT is still there

it's a tragedy to look at the great Sumerians and Persians before the rise of Islam

Tell that to the Religious Right in the US

Redpill me on the fall of Zoroastrianism, Veeky Forums. I know the Sassanians got conquered by the Rashiduns. How were the Zoroastrians treated by the muslims following that?

Persians were shit and one of the reasons why those lands fell to islam

If me would have been ruled by assyrians or babylonians then none of that would have happened

I think things would be more stable, and the Yaghnobi tribe would be considered "holy people", instead of Jews or Jerusalem. People would take pilgrimages to the river of Amu Darya in Transoxiana. Transoxiana would be full of dancing Westerners worshipping fire and chanting the Avesta.

In general, there would be more religious solidarity because Zoroastrianism did have more diversity. I do think sectarian in-fighting would occur by Zurvanite revivalists, Mazdakite revivalists, and traditional Zoroastrians but not to the level of Protestant vs. Catholicism.

Iran and Central Asia would be more stable, and the Gulf Monarchies would probably never be supported. You'd also have more films dealing with Zoroastrian themes.

Better. Far better.
Europe was perfectly fine in paganism. Strong, harmonious and efficient. Christianism hushed the whole continent for centuries, no one was allowed to learn anything, people were forced to form secret societies to work on basic things as building or healing. Monotheism is the major catastrophe that happened in mankind evolution.

she would still be alive...

The dark ages in the West would have lasted centuries longer and the world would be much further behind where we are today.

At least outline your reasons, faggot.

monotheism broke down the concept of the God-king which was a quantum leap forward in human social evolution.

see

>no relative "unification" of the european continet under one church
An assumption. This is the problem of countefactual thinking. Europeans would take Zoroastrianism and add their own blend to it, kind of like what Stephen E. Flowers is doing.

>no bastion of order and knowledge left in europe once rome collapses
Zoroastrianism is all about order and knowledge (asha). Ahura Mazda represents this in opposition to Ahriman who represents chaos and lie (druj).

Did you know the word paradise comes from the Avestan word pairidaeza?

>no civilising of the european barbarians mind through christian theology
Europeans civilized themselves. It was not due to Christianity. Are you that much of a cuck to place all of Europe's greatness at Christianity?

>no chance of the scientific method being "invented" and refined in the west
You are an idiot. I am stopping here. Neck yourself.

KYS

>Europeans civilized themselves. It was not due to Christianity. Are you that much of a cuck to place all of Europe's greatness at Christianity?

please attend at least a 1000 level western civ class before posting on Veeky Forums. you may go now.

I think you mistyped this post, replacing the worship of men with the worship of fictional characters was a huge step backwards in human social evolution. It really only servers to obscure power relationships.

Still slave states that go after the rule of the strongest.

Please at least learn that people have their own autonomy. Placing the successes of European peoples based on their adoption of Christianity is retarded beyond all measure. Why do you think Europeans of the past lack the capacity to take another religion, modify it with their own spin, and be successful with that religion?

which is why democracy sprung from a divine monarchy...? you need to have at least a basic understanding of the social sciences before you try and discuss them.

It very depends on what moral base this religion has.
Europeans can be very succesful without christianity too just Hitler level of succesful.

your stance seems to rest on faith in assumption that are not born out by fact or reason.

if you want to play fantasy Veeky Forums is over there>>>>>

Whatever, Christ cuck. Go back to blowing that dead Jew's dick on the Cross. You people are jokes.

maybe. having an overarching social organization not bond to any particular secular power structure seems to have helped Europe develop vibrant political, intellectual, legal and commercial institutions.

It's should be noted their main rival in that regard was also a monotheistic civilization.

>You people are jokes.
Said the joke

god bless you. I'll pray for you.

>I am not going to give any arguments at all

I meant that Europeans don't need Christianity to develop at all.
The Roman Empire was very developed and on its peak under Paganism.

The value of Christianity is a humanitarian one.

Under Paganism we would propably genocided and enslaved much much more through out History until today.

Islam wouldn't have stand a chance to even exist under it.

the argument is manifest in the world you live in. the 2 most dynamic human systems of the last 1000 years have been Christianity and its' main franchise.

>which is why democracy sprung from a divine monarchy...?
Of course not? But then democracy is certainly not any sort of absolute measure of social evolution. Modern democracy is built off of god worship, and consequently it is also an incredibly obscurant system; one where true power relationships are hidden deeply beneath layers of lies. That's not to say democracy is always backwards, we could probably agree that an egoistic democracy would be the apex of social evolution. A state where everyone is entirely honest about their intentions and collective democratic decisions only apply to those who entirely agree with the democracy's decision, a sort of Stirnerian union of egoists. But this is all obviously theoretical and would be impractical to the point of utopianism. Democracy as it stands is much less developed and more backwards than a government where the king is literally god, as the power relationships are all directly in your face.

Rome's main weakness seems to have been its' close ties with its' political culture. When it's politics declined or stagnated so did the entire civilization.

Christian civilization seems to be made of sterner stuff, indeed times of political chaos often seem to coincide with other parts of the culture flourishing.

Christianity castrated us for the sake of humanity.

One can judge it as he want.

>Democracy as it stands is much less developed and more backwards than a government where the king is literally god, as the power relationships are all directly in your face.

care to provide any examples? the absolute power structures of the modern era (the communist regimes being a prime example) seem to retard social human progress. Just compare the Koreas.

>Rome's main weakness seems to have been its' close ties with its' political culture.

Can you give examples of this.

I see the real weakness there was Christianity. Read up how Romans went on Carthage and on the Jews. Compare this to how they went on the Germanics, Huns and Persians later under Christianity.
The invasion could have been prevented more suffisticated by a proper genocide rather than the atempt to avoid conflicts through tributes like with the Huns. Straight conquest and pupet goverment + enslavemt to the Persians. And also simple Genocide to the Germanics + enslavement. Under this the Roman Empire would easily reach a new height. It were the wars and slave economy the Roman Empire was based on economicaly.

>Christianity castrated us

explain the Spanish empire then...

Other examples:
Compare the laws in the Empire done before Christianity and after.
After there where Price limits on food and minimum wage regulations. It's like socialism.

Imagine the Spanish Empire under a Paganist faith with no moral obligations.

Rome was in deep decline during the 3rd century. the energy and cultural vibrancy of the young Christian church probably kept it going in the west for another century or so.

The latin blood was spent by the early 200s, they lacked the strength to genocide any of the major tribal confederations of the 4th or 5th centuries. In fact they relied on the strength of friendly groups (often friendly due to a shared faith) to keep threading water.

the Roman army that fought the Hun was mostly German after all.

they wouldn't have even had an empire.

Carthage and the jews were more organized and could be more easily defeated than a bunch loose germanic tribes that unite and disintegrate. Rome history had problems dealing with these people before remember the gauls sacked rome in 390 bc

the Roman Republic and Pagan Emperors were big fans of social programs and market regulation.

>bread and circuses.

ITT

They overcame the crisis.
Even if not it doesn't really matter. A stronger people would take over. Social Darwinism will have its way.

Earlier or later some would discover the new world.
And take their conquest there.

what is the point of this image?

Outline that Christians are retards?

Did you read this thread?

again you are thinking up fantasies....please proceed to Veeky Forums.

I didn't need to desu but yes

Look at the United State. Who is the most powerful man/group in the American state? Is it the President? The Supreme Court? The Senate? The JCS? Some lobbying group like the unions or AIPAC? I don't have a definite answer for you and I don't think you do either, if you gauged a room you'd probably get as many different answers as there are people. I don't think anybody really knows the answer because there isn't really an answer. When mistakes get made, who do we blame? Now we know that the most powerful person period is God, but God is just a character in a book not a person. We can't point to God and say he made this decision, he has to fix things or pay. The best we can get is a scapegoat, and that's what we will get because people demand catharsis eventually. The guilty party can't be found so we'll end up grabbing whoever we can get our hands on. Maybe they'll be the guilty ones who are getting what they deserve, but more than likely they won't. Hitler tried to give us that scapegoat, that catharsis, and he failed. We'll get our Kalki, just wait for the problems to build up.

>create the modern world
>retards

behold the intellectual power of Veeky Forums.

the modern world in which 4 billion niggers roam the part of the wastelands of the old world that aren't dominated by imperial Chinese insects, meanwhile the western hemisphere descends into brazil-tier savagery and the entire planet suffers ecological disaster?
Thanks I guess, faggot.

>Europeans civilized themselves

>Hitler tried to give us that scapegoat, that catharsis, and he failed.

autocrats are the definition of unaccountable you stupid Nazi cunt.

>hates the modern world.

please shit-yourself to death.

If you read my post as praising Hitler, then I think you need to brush up on your English comprehension. The tone was not one of praise, but one of fatalism. Just like democracy is neither inherently good or bad, neither is autocracy.

there you have it OP, according to this thread without Christianity the world would be over-run with Genocidal Nazi Pagans pooping themselves to death.

>needs an example of an accountable autocrat
>uses Hitler

not sure if child or nazi....maybe a child-nazi.

>you can't have hygiene without multiplying the population of africa literally hundreds of times for no other reason except a smelly kike said to be nice to people

Are you a literal retard? Hitler wasn't an example of an accountable autocrat, he was an example of what democracy inevitably leads to. When society fails, people want to know who's fault it is. In a modern democracy there is no simple answer, no singular group or person we can point to as guilty. Because there is no easily identifiable guilty party, there's no guarantee that the party that is blamed will actually be guilty.

Veeky Forums a magical place...

Christians doing things don't means christianism itself did everything.
It's like discovering that most scientists like most of the world population are religious and claiming that christianism is responsible for everything they did.
It's a good counterarguments to fedora memes about mun atheist scientists and muh dark ages but going to the opposite extreme is pretty euphoric too.

Who are you? Stop talking to me!

your entire argument is based the faulty premise that a God-king would be accountable.

typically they held other accountable for their own mistakes.

No it's not you stupid nigger I'm getting really tired of your shit. My argument is based on the premise that sooner or later, heads will roll under every form of government. Under a government in which the man responsible for society's problems is literally touted as a god, there is a greater chance that it will be his head that rolls. This is opposed to say a modern democracy, where nobody knows who's responsible and everyone ends up going after a group that more than likely is not guilty.

but that's completely and observably untrue.

But it's not.

Not true. But the meme about Jews being greedy would not exist since there would be no religion declaring usary a sin and Jews would not works as much as bankers.

also a lot more inbreeding

No Islam

muslim, middle-east centered

That narrative is sort of overblown. Jews were that way prior to that as well.

In what sense without christianity?
Pauline Christianity was only one branch of hundreds of cults, sects and religions at the time that referred to jesus in some way and integrated him in their beliefs. So if Jesus (or the concept of Jesus or the teachings attributed to him) never existed then first of all the middle east would have looked very different but also there wouldn't have been gnostic religions like mandaeanism or manichaeism which spread all the way to china and changed things over there that would be different without it.

the roman empire would probably have turned to some other cult (possibly mithraism) because religious upheaval would've been there no matter what.

islam would never have arisen, germanics would never have been integrated into roman imperial ideology in the same way, i.e. there wouldn't have been a holy roman empire.

Why aren't negroes civilized then, they worship the dead-kike-on-a-stick too

Christianity is Jewish

>captcha : Jesus
lol

thats like asking "what if justin bieber never existed?!"

Nothin, some other random meme would have risen to the top, the world was just ripe for a new mass phenomenon. It would have fit the same mould.

Myths about desertmen are not hard to come by.

It would have been much better, because christkikenity is a swarthy semitic religion, in comparison to Nordid-made cults like the native European faiths, Zoroastrism, Buddhism, Vedism-Hinduism.