>>11189571I understand this mindset, anon. But I can't accept it. Let me address what I can see here.
>Pagans lost for a reason and their ideas died for a reason. They were inferior.Muslims will say the same thing about Christianity today. Non-Whites fucking like rabbits and doing nothing good for the world will say this about Whites today. Having a prevalent majority doesn't make something superior.
>Just because some tribes were rightly against faggots doesnt make them valid. I was correcting where you were misinformed. Not making an appeal to your personal idea of validity.
>Nor does that automatically equate to a patriarchal society structure. The prominent Indo-European culture in pre-Christian Europe was undoubtedly patriarchial. If you don't know this all I can say is you need to research it.
>Until the introduction of christianityTo challenge this with the most obvious point, does this include Rome and Greece pre-conversion?
>Multiple "Gods" i.e multiple supreme beings. Showing a clear lack of understanding. This one just really comes down to a misunderstanding of panthiesm. You're viewing paganism through a mono-thiestic lens, assuming that a god is something all powerful and absolute above all else. This leads you to see the presence of more than one diety as a contradiction of logic. Faiths with mutliple gods don't view dieties in this way. These figures usually have specific representations or roles, different forms of power, weaknesses etc. It's not a lack of understanding, it's a completely different worldview. You failing to notice that difference might be the actual misunderstanding here.
.1/2
