/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20423391]

> We totes should be more like the barbarians: wild, free, hairy and simple with no luxury. Those are real men!!

Why do church fathers always come off as embittered incels?

[Anonymous No.20423401]

>>20423391
because incels are pretty much correct in their assesment of modern society.

yes, I've had numerous girlfriends, don't @ me

[Anonymous No.20423411]

>>20423391
Also proof that trannies existed in ancient times as Clement writes:

> But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women.

[Anonymous No.20423423]

>>20423411
>feminine/homo men are trannies
Ywnbaw etc

[Anonymous No.20423453]

>>20423423
Cope

[Anonymous No.20423554]

>>20423391
It is interesting how modern western culture is the opposite of this, women should be proud of being women no matter what and men ashamed of being men.

[Anonymous No.20423564]

>>20423411
We are RETVRNING to once ancient society bit by bit. Where sex positivity was the ruling mode and sex work was seen in some cases as even holy. There was queerness all around and all manner of relationship, open or otherwise. People were free and not ashamed of themselves and lived life to the fullest (eudaimonia). Then Christianity happened and...yeah...there's a reason why incels gravitate to it. It's severe, homophobic, anti-queer, sex negative, intolerant of non-monogamous marriages and relationships, misogynistic, restraining, etc., etc. and simply put: it denies life. It beats me why people accepted this incel shit over their old traditions (has something to do with Roman Emperor's and their shifting politics) but that's what happened unfortunately. Today, we are thankfully progressing towards more queer-acceptance and sexual liberation but unfortunately we still get massive setbacks every now and then (see: the recent decision by the SCOTUS). Thankfully most people, especially the new generation, are against this sort of thing so I have hope we'll eventually win out against this sort of backwards thinking. Yes, the past was not 100% liberal-anarchist (never said it was) and it was obviously way more intolerant than we would nowadays like (e.g. Roman marriage was monogamous only and Rome, though way more liberal than any nation in Christendom was before modern secularization and woman's vote, was an incredibly misogynistic culture) but it sure as hell wasn't fucking Christian, and I'll take that over living in the middle ages any day. I recommend Christians here start with the classics before they convince themselves of the poison that is the Bible and all Abrahamic religion

[Anonymous No.20423573]

>>20423564
>We are RETVRNING to once ancient society bit by bit
What do you mean by ancient society?

[Anonymous No.20423578]

>>20423411
>act the part of women
That means being a fag, taking the role of the woman in sex. Trannies can't exist by definition without exogenous hormone therapy except in astronomically rare cases of birth defects.

[Anonymous No.20423694]

>>20423564
>Where sex positivity was the ruling mode and sex work was seen in some cases as even holy. There was queerness all around and all manner of relationship, open or otherwise. People were free and not ashamed of themselves and lived life to the fullest (eudaimonia)
In 3,000 years, that's what people like you will say about current year. This is a nice little pipe dream, but unfortunately letting queers and trannies be queer trannies doesn't eliminate human nature. It sounds like you've never had to struggle all that much, if you believe so many complex things can be made better by closer adherence to your personal, favorite ideology.

[Anonymous No.20423701]

>>20423564
Demoralization propaganda, refuted by you being a pedophile.

[Anonymous No.20423711]

>>20423573
Almost every ancient civilization was just like how I described. The jealous God concept, and thus the jealous concept of sex, came out of Israel, a nation small and with many enemies, hence their need to reproduce and be anti-gay, anti-woman, etc. Rome at it's height, by contrast, was extremely liberal (though the elite still enjoyed this liberality the most unfortunately). Do you see the master vs slave morality at play here? Compare Israel with Greece or Israel with the empires and nations of ancient Mesopotamia or Egypt. Do any of these places have comparable mores to the Abrahamics?

[Anonymous No.20423787]

>>20423711
t. pedophile

[Anonymous No.20423802]

>>20423694
> Slave morality will win out again! just you wait!
It just might (like I said, we're seeing fluxions of intolerance popping up more and more frequently from our most decrepit and backwards looking boomer overlords) but I doubt it. Why would we (and especially this new generation) go back? Nobody likes religion. Nobody likes sex-negativity. Nobody wants anymore intolerance. Nobody wants to be restrained by some old boomer guilting us to do whatever he wants us to do or else the old man in the sky will be angry at us and put us in hell. We all just want to have fun, be free, and fuck. Why would we want to stop the good thing that we finally have going?

[Anonymous No.20423804]

Because they were embittered incels, just like the current batch of christlarpers

[Anonymous No.20423841]

>>20423804
Thank God the current batch are way too married to the society they criticise to ever actually overthrow it and take control of it to institute their backwards inceldom on us all like the Church fathers did.

[Anonymous No.20423856]

>>20423711
>Rome at it's height, by contrast, was extremely liberal

[Anonymous No.20423866]

>>20423711
>Rome at it's height, by contrast, was extremely liberal

[Anonymous No.20423937]

>>20423423
They are, there are no varying degrees of faggotry or sex. Consult your own platitudes, and then kill yourself as singularly befits your ilk.

[Anonymous No.20423941]

>>20423401
fpbp

>>20423841
also worthwhile

eventually you western society is about creating stagnant comfort that we may exist in living death side by side with abominations

no one has the strength to throw off this yoke for the reward of the pains of nature

[Anonymous No.20423948]

>>20423941
you realize*

in effect we are living outside of and against god's world

[Anonymous No.20423962]

>>20423856
>>20423866
So are you guys going to refute my assertion or not? How was Rome as conservative or more conservative than Israel or Medieval Christendom?

[Anonymous No.20423972]

>>20423711
The Greeks and Romans had strict sexual mores and gender roles and any transgression of these were met with repulsion and hatred. In the case of men, the effeminate, who was any man who engaged in the various things that were considered unmanly, such as excessive grooming, sexual hyperactivity, womanizing, dressing in a womanly manner (which could mean having too comfortable clothes), etc, and worst of all, of course, transgressing the highly socially regulated norms of their institution of pederasty. Such men were considered sexual devients, adult catamites were reviled and mocked, having lost their respect as citizens, being cut of from virtus, the Roman concept of male virtue which was essentially social and political. Being declared an effeminate was the worst thing that could happen socially to a man in these societies. Greco-Roman masculinity culture as it existed in these traditional societies, in the sociological sense, that were not far gone from the tribal warrior societies they developed from is hardly comparable with whatever childish suggestions of gender conformity we have now. The individuals who deviated from established gender roles were completely dehumanized, considered to be creatures not even male or female. They were "unnatural freaks", for which it was said to be more important to note the date of their death than the date of their birth (this is from a Roman anthologist talking about a woman who assumed the male role simply by participating in court system).

[Anonymous No.20423977]

>>20423711
Roman elites were not sexually liberal. Dionysian/Bacchic cults were selectively rooted out and extinguished as being subversive, and the patricians took marital customs and chastity very seriously (see the Vestal virgins). It's only in the later years that the elites became more decadent, which coincided with its downfall.

[Anonymous No.20424013]

>>20423711
Civilizations decline, they can't be founded on degeneracy. The constituent elements (the people) wouldn't be healthy enough for their society to rise to the level of civilization. The purpose of a moral system is physical health and survival, meaning reproduction, meaning eugenics, and so every nation has more or less the same morals until it can afford (for a time) not to have them.

[Anonymous No.20424053]

>>20423962
Read a book

[Anonymous No.20424427]

>>20423972
What about Nero? Faustina the Younger? Messalina? Hadrian? I could go on...
The truth is, the Romans *were* liberal. When Puritans like Augustus tried to reform laws to bring up birthrates and stregthen marriage and family values (sound familiar) they failed because nobody respected his laws! He didn't even respect his own laws (except insofar is he could point fingures at others like his unfortunate daughter).
> In 18 B.C., the Emperor Augustus turned his attention to social problems at Rome. Extravagance and adultery were widespread. Among the upper classes, marriage was increasingly infrequent and, many couples who did marry failed to produce offspring. Augustus, who hoped thereby to elevate both the morals and the numbers of the upper classes in Rome, and to increase the population of native Italians in Italy, enacted laws to encourage marriage and having children (lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus), including provisions establishing adultery as a crime.
> The law against adultery made the offence a crime punishable by exile and confiscation of property. Fathers were permitted to kill daughters and their partners in adultery. Husbands could kill the partners under certain circumstances and were required to divorce adulterous wives. Augustus himself was obliged to invoke the law against his own daughter, Julia, and relegated her to the island of Pandateria. [15]
> The Augustan social laws were badly received and were modified in A.D. 9 by the lex Papia Poppaea, named for the two bachelor consuls of that year. The earlier and later laws are often referred to in juristic sources as the lex Julia et Papia.
Nobody bothered to inform the authorities when these laws were broken and they became largely symbolic. Nobody cared and they all went on with their lives. So Augustus's laws were really the impotent screeching of some boomer puritan (kind of like modern conservatives increasingly are, lmao)! Everybody hated what he did to his daughter and people protested it often. Sorry, but you're losing the culture war, just like Augustus lost it millennia ago!
>>20424013
>Civilizations decline, they can't be founded on degeneracy.
Who said I wanted civilisaton to be founded on degeneracy?
>degeneracy
Can you even define what you mean by that and why it's bad?
>The purpose of a moral system is physical health and survival, meaning reproduction, meaning eugenics, and so every nation has more or less the same morals until it can afford (for a time) not to have them.
You're making stuff up. Your kind have been always been saying shit like "Boy this country is going to hell in a handbasket" but nobody knows what you mean by that. Why? how do sex-negative """morals""" prevent the so-called degeneracy of a nation? God, I hate arguing in these outdated pseudo-scientific terms. It makes me feel so gross.
>>20424053
Funny, I probably have read way more than you've ever had and perhaps even ever will.

[Anonymous No.20424439]

>>20424427
Whoa retard are you shitposting or effortposting? You're supposed to be wasting my time not yours.

[Anonymous No.20424483]

>>20424427
>What about Nero? Faustina the Younger? Messalina? Hadrian? I could go on...
How does the fact that sexual mores were transgressed prove that there were no sexual mores in the first place? Rulers and kings did often break the rules of their societies, especially when it came to the sexual. This happened both in Rome and later Medieval Christendom, take for instance the semi-institutionalized office of maîtresse-en-titre, or chief mistress, in the French monarchy.
>Extravagance and adultery were widespread.
I don't think anyone is denying the decadence of especially Late Roman civilization.

[Anonymous No.20424493]

>>20424483
>Augustus
>Late Roman civilization
Why should I continue to read what you have to say from now on? You don't seem particularly informed about what we're talking about.

[Anonymous No.20424507]

>>20424493
Excuse the sloppy language, but Republican Rome had existed for around 500 years, now hasn't it?

[Anonymous No.20424513]

>>20424483
Also, again, to be clear, sexual freedom for the public was much greater in general in Roman Antiquity than it would be later in Christendom. It doesn't much matter how you slice it. that's just true no matter what. I am not making a point about which Rulin class was freer (in which case it would still be the Romans).

[Anonymous No.20424525]

>>20424513
No, you're right. They were sexually freer, as you say. Christianity did a great deal to reduce licentiousness. The point is that it does not follow that Rome was "liberal", and the comparison with modern queerness and sex positivity isn't just short of "100%", it's laughable.

[Anonymous No.20424528]

>>20424427
>Messalina
Executed and publicly shamed for her actions.
>Nero
Despised by most Romans for his tendencies.
>Hadrian?
A relatively late emperor who was a pederast. Besides that he did not exactly violate the marital customs.
>Faustina
What? Do you mean attempting to secure political positions for her offspring?
>Nobody bothered to inform the authorities when these laws were broken and they became largely symbolic.
Do you know what the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus is? Augustus was attempting a correction, no doubt, the fact that he failed says less about him than it does about the fact that Roman society was already somewhat in decline at that point for the reasons you are trying to point out as "good."
>I could go on...
I doubt it. You've named four individuals, two of whom can barely be said to demonstrate your point at all. And they are all more or less later figureheads. Even at the beginning of the Empire it already had problems appearing which were now spreading into the upper parts of society where before it hadn't, no one would deny that much.
>Why? how do sex-negative """morals""" prevent the so-called degeneracy of a nation?
For a start, in a different context, read the Law Code of Manu. Secondly, it's not that "sex-negative" morals prevent the degeneracy of a nation, but that they are indicative of a nation that is already strong and virile. However, certain precepts can be seen as necessary prerequisites for hierarchy and solidarity which are the preconditions of strength and directedness (the opposites of degeneracy), namely:

Piety (religious veneration of the state and law): As the law and custom are above the questioning of mortals, there is no hesitation with respect to the law, they are followed without question, meaning strength is directed outwards (at the world) rather than inwards (at deconstructing one's own customs; degeneracy in just the same as cancer). The marital customs are sanctioned by divine power and are beyond question.

Veneration of ancestral traditions and hearth deities: The maintenance of a powerful set of instinctual guidelines and familial feeling which fosters an intergenerational and biological egoism necessary for self-confidence and instinctual power and self-maintenance of the leading families. Part of this is the respect for proper bloodlines and non-promiscuous breeding, ie proper marital customs.

The value of female purity in Roman society was crystalized in the Vestal virgins. They were responsible for "keeping the flame alight." It's somewhat of a miracle they even lasted as long as they did, and their abolition by Christians coincides somewhat with the Vandal sacking of Rome which is a curiosity in itself.

These points are partly why "sex-negative" morals (which are actually "sex-positive" considered in a proper light, ie using sex for its proper purpose, instead of pleasure worship, the highest symbol of decadence and weakness) are necessary from a holistic perspective.

[Anonymous No.20424627]

>>20423972
Dude if Romans were truly conservative, they would have exterminated Christians like the Japanese, but they couldn’t. And the freaking last emperor to persecute Christians literally felt guilty about it.

> It was at the insistence of Galerius that the last edicts of persecution against the Christians were published, beginning on February 24, 303, and this policy of repression was maintained by him until the appearance of the general edict of toleration, issued from Nicomedia in April 311, apparently during his last bout of illness (see Edict of Toleration by Galerius). Galerius's last request was that Christians should pray for him as he suffered with a painful and fatal illness; he died six days later.[35]

> Initially one of the leading figures in the persecutions, Galerius later admitted that the policy of trying to eradicate Christianity had failed, saying: "wherefore, for this our indulgence, they ought to pray to their God for our safety, for that of the republic, and for their own, that the republic may continue uninjured on every side, and that they may be able to live securely in their homes." This marked the end of official persecution of Christians.

[Anonymous No.20424633]

>>20424528
Yeah interesting how the Christian Goths were sent to sack Rome. The pagan Gods work in mysterious ways I guess. It’s nice of them to reward the Christian Goths.

[Anonymous No.20424674]

>>20423564
based
>>20423701
meds

[Anonymous No.20424679]

>>20423564
This kills the chud

[Anonymous No.20424690]

>>20423564
>It's severe, homophobic, anti-queer, sex negative, intolerant of non-monogamous marriages and relationships, misogynistic, restraining, etc., etc. and simply put: it denies life.

Actually that's atheists, since the root of atheism is physicalism and atomism, traced back to the pre-Socratic Democritus and is a gateway to the demiurge.

[Anonymous No.20424731]

>>20424679
Women had a life restricted to domestic tasks, had the same civil rights as children and slaves in Greece. Only one example.

[Anonymous No.20425077]

>>20424731
>>20424528

Keep coping, niggers. The Roman Empire was globohomo

> “And neither does the sea nor a great expanse of intervening land keep one from being a citizen [of Rome], nor here are Asia and Europe distinguished. But all lies open to all men. No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold office or to be trusted, but there has been established a common democracy of the world.” - Aelius Aristides, 2nd century

The world is retuning as it once was in Roman times.