Talk:The Last Church
Sorry if this seems presumptuous, but the middle two quarters of this article seem to be arguing with itself vehemently, either ragging on the Emperor in one sentence and then excusing his actions in the next. If you're going to argue, could you separate the pro and the contra sides into two coherent bulletpoints that list the pro and contra instead of some schizo self-arguing? 141.70.81.136 11:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- That happens when people use the main article for making points and arguing instead of the discussion page, I've now cleaned that up, deleted the repeat arguments and removed the opposing sides. -- Triacom (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Makes me wonder[edit]
If every mention of The Emprah's supposed fuck-up with the whole "no religions" bit on 1d4chan is written by the same "angry militant" believer, what with sticking USSR(which "failed" for reasons far from religion) mentions somewhere nearby all the time and implying that compassion and morality cannot be upheld without religion. It just seems so typical of them to link everything to it. I guess we need ourselves our own Manly Man-peror that will explain the value of compassion to people by logic not with "your soul will burn in hell otherwise"(which is very charming) and that will finally leave big religious organisations with no folding screen for corruption inside.
- I can guarantee that it isn't the same person, and I doubt most (or even any) of the people contributing are 'angry militants'. I also think you completely missed their point since I haven't seen anyone try to link the fall of the USSR to lacking religion, or that compassion and morality cannot be upheld without religion. Your whole post is just the pot calling the kettle black, since you seem to be on the opposite extreme of whoever you imagine wrote those sections. -- Triacom (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
- Well...God-Emperor of Mankind Unification wars subsection, end of the first paragraph. Took me like 2 minutes of searching. Also a bit at the end of this very page sort of fits. "you seem to be", "and I doubt most (or even any)" - using your impressions and assumptions as an argument? In 2018, seriously? I was in a somewhat grumpy mood, from what i remember, when writing that cute manifesto above, but this counterargument of yours barely deserves to be called such. "you seem to be on the opposite extreme of whoever you imagine wrote those sections." ok i get that you people in the West are getting sensitive to any kind of convictions, thanks to SJWs plaguing your cultures, but using their own favourite trick of labeling someone as an extremist and dismissing is no good.
- So your first step is to look up a different page and then take a section in it completely out of context? The point isn't to say that you need religion to be compassionate, the point is that forcing people to abandon their ideals and values has not worked out well in the real world, with those links being examples of such cases. The reason I used those words is because I'm not going to presume to speak for somebody else, simple as that. Yes you can use impressions, why wouldn't you be able to, especially in response to you when you're using an impression you got? I also didn't make an assumption, otherwise I would've said "you are" instead of "you seem to be" because that leaves it open for you to say "I'm not". I know you're triggered over somebody else who's disagreeing to you so you need to run to use the nearest buzzwords because you don't have an actual argument, but if you took a moment to read what I wrote you could've replied with something that actually made sense like "I'm not like that" instead of whining for another paragraph while having no clue what you're talking about. -- Triacom (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, so cute. Who is triggered again? I used a section from an "unrelated" page as an example because my first post was about the entire wiki, not just this page, try to pay attention every now and then, i hear good things about it. Also it was about linking USSR to atheism being worthless (which is a hilariously overused sophistic idea) not about morality. And no i am not using my impressions it is written right there."I know you're" oh boy...good for you i guess. Look i am sorry if your butt takes a beautiful orange color whenever someone doesn't pay respect to judeo-christian fantasy books, but all you had to say is that you wrote some things on this wiki that i wondered about and didn't write others, all that "i am objectively right and what you to admit it" teenage ranting of yours was unnecessary.
- I didn't say you used an unrelated page, I said you used a section in a different page out of context. Calm your triggered tits and read what I wrote before you try to quote words I never used. The USSR isn't used to show atheism as being worthless, it is used to demonstrate that trying to force people to give up what they believe in doesn't end well. This also applies to forcing people to give up atheism but since that wasn't the Emperor's goal, and since that's obvious to even a five year old, it wasn't mentioned. If you think it is saying that atheism is worthless then you aren't paying attention. You should try it sometime, I hear good things can happen when you pay attention, like not fucking up a very basic verbal jab which now looks like you had a stroke midway through it. As for that last bit, why wouldn't I try to correct the record when you begin making assumptions that aren't true or supported by the wiki? Furthermore, I think you should take a step back, because your this bit: "all that "i am objectively right and what you to admit it" teenage ranting of yours was unnecessary." applies more to you than anyone else on the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- <it is used to demonstrate that trying to force people to give up what they believe in doesn't end well> Ahem...As Russian, i must explain, that those typical oversimplified myph about "commies purges religion" is far from reality in a case of USSR. Pre-revolutionary Russian Empire was extrimely devided society, where 80% of people were peasants, who worked somewhere about Middle-ages level of technology. And yeap, most of them were Christians. But they are were Orthodox Cristians. A little, but very important nuance. This brunch of christianity is closer to the eraly christians, who lived in communes, shared everything they had, and did not own stuff (sound familiar, hah?). Common people tried to achive this ideal, read about, what is obshina (common land ownerhip in Russia). Empire goverment tried to destroy such form of ownership with Stolypin reform, but it caused rage in the peasants masses. This rage was temporary reduced by patriotic feelings, when WW1 started, but increased in many times, when Russian army started to lose. And SURPRISE, we had a revolution, literal deathmatch with many many players, when everybody must choose his side. And why most ortodox christian Russians joined atheist Red Army? Just because all life they are heared about asketism from fat goverment-whores priest with golden crosses on their necks, and now they a see selfless heroic order of "communists samurai" commissars. In short, communists did not forced masses to deny their beliefs - they are was just much better example of original cristian ideas, than corrapted church itself, wich losed their reputation long time ago.
- For a Russian, you apparently know little about Soviet State atheism, Marx, etc. For the Communists, state atheism was indeed a goal. They never fully succeeded with how Christian their population was but they DID force them to deny beliefs. State mandated atheism was a central part of Soviet policy. Churches were demolished and thousands of clergy were imprisoned, tortured and killed.
- Calling a man out for not knowing history and ignoring the fact Russian Orthodox church was legitimized in USSR in 1942-1943 (because surprise-surprise blind faith in something you don't have to think a lot about has a way of keeping morale up when someone is burning your country) is filthy rich m8. As is thinking USSR had a lot to do with Marxism in practice by the time uncle Adolf came with his totally not worse than damned commies war.
- Also hey that amusing fella actually tried to turn his butthurt around on me after I fucked off. Even had to insult my english (where else do you go when you don't have arguments I guess). Not sure what verbal jab I fucked up but hey I am sure his Russian is perfect. Should've looked here earlier. Fun stuff.
- For a Russian, you apparently know little about Soviet State atheism, Marx, etc. For the Communists, state atheism was indeed a goal. They never fully succeeded with how Christian their population was but they DID force them to deny beliefs. State mandated atheism was a central part of Soviet policy. Churches were demolished and thousands of clergy were imprisoned, tortured and killed.
- <it is used to demonstrate that trying to force people to give up what they believe in doesn't end well> Ahem...As Russian, i must explain, that those typical oversimplified myph about "commies purges religion" is far from reality in a case of USSR. Pre-revolutionary Russian Empire was extrimely devided society, where 80% of people were peasants, who worked somewhere about Middle-ages level of technology. And yeap, most of them were Christians. But they are were Orthodox Cristians. A little, but very important nuance. This brunch of christianity is closer to the eraly christians, who lived in communes, shared everything they had, and did not own stuff (sound familiar, hah?). Common people tried to achive this ideal, read about, what is obshina (common land ownerhip in Russia). Empire goverment tried to destroy such form of ownership with Stolypin reform, but it caused rage in the peasants masses. This rage was temporary reduced by patriotic feelings, when WW1 started, but increased in many times, when Russian army started to lose. And SURPRISE, we had a revolution, literal deathmatch with many many players, when everybody must choose his side. And why most ortodox christian Russians joined atheist Red Army? Just because all life they are heared about asketism from fat goverment-whores priest with golden crosses on their necks, and now they a see selfless heroic order of "communists samurai" commissars. In short, communists did not forced masses to deny their beliefs - they are was just much better example of original cristian ideas, than corrapted church itself, wich losed their reputation long time ago.
- I didn't say you used an unrelated page, I said you used a section in a different page out of context. Calm your triggered tits and read what I wrote before you try to quote words I never used. The USSR isn't used to show atheism as being worthless, it is used to demonstrate that trying to force people to give up what they believe in doesn't end well. This also applies to forcing people to give up atheism but since that wasn't the Emperor's goal, and since that's obvious to even a five year old, it wasn't mentioned. If you think it is saying that atheism is worthless then you aren't paying attention. You should try it sometime, I hear good things can happen when you pay attention, like not fucking up a very basic verbal jab which now looks like you had a stroke midway through it. As for that last bit, why wouldn't I try to correct the record when you begin making assumptions that aren't true or supported by the wiki? Furthermore, I think you should take a step back, because your this bit: "all that "i am objectively right and what you to admit it" teenage ranting of yours was unnecessary." applies more to you than anyone else on the wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, so cute. Who is triggered again? I used a section from an "unrelated" page as an example because my first post was about the entire wiki, not just this page, try to pay attention every now and then, i hear good things about it. Also it was about linking USSR to atheism being worthless (which is a hilariously overused sophistic idea) not about morality. And no i am not using my impressions it is written right there."I know you're" oh boy...good for you i guess. Look i am sorry if your butt takes a beautiful orange color whenever someone doesn't pay respect to judeo-christian fantasy books, but all you had to say is that you wrote some things on this wiki that i wondered about and didn't write others, all that "i am objectively right and what you to admit it" teenage ranting of yours was unnecessary.
- So your first step is to look up a different page and then take a section in it completely out of context? The point isn't to say that you need religion to be compassionate, the point is that forcing people to abandon their ideals and values has not worked out well in the real world, with those links being examples of such cases. The reason I used those words is because I'm not going to presume to speak for somebody else, simple as that. Yes you can use impressions, why wouldn't you be able to, especially in response to you when you're using an impression you got? I also didn't make an assumption, otherwise I would've said "you are" instead of "you seem to be" because that leaves it open for you to say "I'm not". I know you're triggered over somebody else who's disagreeing to you so you need to run to use the nearest buzzwords because you don't have an actual argument, but if you took a moment to read what I wrote you could've replied with something that actually made sense like "I'm not like that" instead of whining for another paragraph while having no clue what you're talking about. -- Triacom (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well...God-Emperor of Mankind Unification wars subsection, end of the first paragraph. Took me like 2 minutes of searching. Also a bit at the end of this very page sort of fits. "you seem to be", "and I doubt most (or even any)" - using your impressions and assumptions as an argument? In 2018, seriously? I was in a somewhat grumpy mood, from what i remember, when writing that cute manifesto above, but this counterargument of yours barely deserves to be called such. "you seem to be on the opposite extreme of whoever you imagine wrote those sections." ok i get that you people in the West are getting sensitive to any kind of convictions, thanks to SJWs plaguing your cultures, but using their own favourite trick of labeling someone as an extremist and dismissing is no good.
Islam reference[edit]
the whole part saying is the "only religion" to not want the slaughter of infidels is just plain wrong.
Shinto. Buddhism. Zoroastrianism. Jainism. Taoism. Tengriism. even a number of new age ones like Unitarian Universalism and Rastafarianism.
It's an Xtian crusader-fag spewing bullshit trying to make XTianity look better than they were and blaming everything evil all on Commies, atheists, secularists and Muslims. So I removed the section. Despite the fact that the Crusades and Nazism were right wing Xtian movements. There should be a rule against pusing historical revisionism. It also violates no arguing on the main page rule. You can change or delete it if the crusader-fag keeps doing it Valvatorez (talk)
- Nazism was a right wing Xtian movement
- There should be a rule against pushing historical revisionism.
- Pot, meet kettle. Also, it's funny that you think 'Xtian' is insulting to Christians when it was an early abbreviation used by Greek Christians. --203.40.63.45 07:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because it causes butthurt in crusader faggots such as yourself. I'm not the right wing degenerate pushing pol-tard bs as facts here. All bullshit. Nazism was a right wing Xtian christa movement. Hitler himself spoke of Positive Xtainity often and would threaten to kill any critics of Xtains. You crusader fags just want to push beliefs as fact when it was in fact country to history.Valvatorez (talk)
- >immediately labeling people who disagree with you as 'x group'
- I'll be nice and engage instead of telling you to go back to /pol/. Nazism was in no way a Christian movement, Hitler hated the power the churches had on the 'German people' and constantly worked to undercut/replace Christianity with his own doctrines. Hence why the SS stole so much pagan shit.
- Tl;dr: Christianity has done enough horrible stuff that you should be able to find something bad they've done (like the Crusades) instead of defaulting to 'lol, they Nazis!'.
- Also, I'll cut off your next argument by mentioning that I agree with the removal of the /pol/ bullshit. Just don't act like you're not trying to change history to suit your needs as well. --203.40.63.45 08:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe your just giving cover to the your fellow crusder-fags.
"Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a movement within Nazi Germany which mixed the belief that the racial purity of the German people should be maintained by mixing Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity". So yes Nazim wes a Christian Movement. Anti-Semitism was also very common at the time due. As they told people to blame Jews instead of the crunches who were robbing them with "Church taxes". The Crusaders were ordered by Pope's themselves, directly. So to deny that is more Xtian revisionism. Maybe you should go back to /pol/ and read the bs those morons like to spew. As denying Xtian violence is a thing a /pol/tard would do.
Also this: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/images/large/0798f2eb-6f1a-4d94-ac4f-41ddd40c92c9.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1985-0109-502%2C_Kirchenwahl.-_Propaganda_der_%22Deutschen_Christen%22_in_Berlin.jpg or are you going to say those was photoshoped?
Also those Soviet Purges? They wouldn't have been able to pull them off without the White Army doing them during the Russian Civil with the sanction of the Orthodox Church first (all terrorist organizations at the time). The Church also supported the brutal Czar regimes as well. Valvatorez (talk)
- I'm not denying Christian violence, the Catholic Church was a horrible and corrupt organisation at multiple times in the past. I'm arguing with your whole 'Nazis were Christian'. So let's break this down:
- "Positive Christianity (German: Positives Christentum) was a movement within Nazi Germany which mixed the belief that the racial purity of the German people should be maintained by mixing Nazi ideology with elements of Christianity".
- Notice here that it was a movement within Nazi Germany, not the Nazi movement. There's currently a movement within Australia that is Nazi in origin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_First_Party). Does this therefore mean all of Australia is Nazi? No.|
- "Anti-Semitism was also very common at the time due. As they told people to blame Jews instead of the crunches who were robbing them with "Church taxes"."
- Got a source for this bit?
- "The Crusaders were ordered by Pope's themselves, directly. So to deny that is more Xtian revisionism."
- Where did I even mention the Crusaders?
- "Also those Soviet Purges? They wouldn't have been able to pull them off without the White Army doing them during the Russian Civil with the sanction of the Orthodox Church first (all terrorist organizations at the time). The Church also supported the brutal Czar regimes as well."
- I notice here that when your argument is challenged, you avoid the subject and bring up a new argument. Typical /pol/ tactics. --203.40.63.45 09:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Why would they need to mix Nazi ideology with Christianity if Naziism was a Christian movement? Surely if that were the case the former would have been tightly linked to the latter from the beginning. Your own "argument" proves your conclusion wrong and suggests that Naziism was attempting to co-opt Christianity for its own purposes, which it was - a tactic that has existed as long as Christianity itself and continues to see use to this day.
Theology ramblings[edit]
I feel that the paragraph about how the Emperor does not know theology is rambling, poorly thought out, full of strawman arguments and is a not-so-thinly veiled insult against people which disagree with the writer's religious views. It does not contribute anything that's informative, insightful or funny to the article while not being well put together and it would be better off without.--A Walrus (talk) 14:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. The argument isn't even well-worded, and it's confusingly contradictory since someone clearly inserted their own counter-arguments in it. It's an utter mess, a headache to read, and worsens the article as a whole. --173.217.194.171 01:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- The entire "Moral" section is preachy and just as bad as the author stating "I wanted this guy to sound right and that guy to sound wrong, now go re-read my shitty fic and see if I did well!". This article doesn't deserve the 'Awesome' tag. The recent addition on "Emprah arguments are shit, priest's are too" and the following point on attempts at abolishing religion don't belong in the Trivia section. My suggestion: remove those two bullet points and rename "Moral" to "Interpretations". --Taufag (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
