Message from @Deleted User
Discord ID: 533426561764950016
right but history shows that not all princes were effectively groomed for rule. why take that risk?
That went out weird
atheist reveals his face
I have to rephrase it, shut up ailurophile
if ur not catholic ur opinion is useless
Because every choice of a new ruler is a risk, a new President could fuck us all, a new Dictator could fuck everything up, a Prince groomed from start is the safest choice
And Divine Right maybe
all religions are inherently assertive/violent
you'll never have a peaceful one
Bhudaism?
@Bird Wizard You can burn at the stake.
^'
Buddism isn't peacefull at all
philosophy is one of peace, in practice u get your typical human behavior
Don't take the Western version of it, take by the Buddist burning himself up in protest
the Slaughtering of Muslims, Christians, and ((long noses))) in China/India
right, peace is not in line with nature
Fearlessness is great for the combat that naturally exists in a worldful of tribes with conflicting interests
yes it is
@πΏπππππππππππ π²πππππππππ not all princes are groomed from birth though and not all princes are willing or capable of carrying out their duty as they are required to. take commodus for example.
As a Christian, I admit that most religions have been violent. Most of them are dead now, however. Though some remain that actively proclaim violence in the name of the divine; **Islam.**
@CronoSaturn That is why you sometimes skip the oldest son, and go to the next one.
That's why you breed many bitches
^
right but how is that determined in a monarchical system?
Religion is violent because man is violent
@Deleted User eternal peace is not
@Bearer Of The Curse fearlessness is venerated. if it's not, your religion dies
unless its too fearless. then it dies anyway
u get suicide bombings and setting yourself aflame
right but its important to remember that in a religious context that those *could* be valid actions so long as they gather more adherents
not everything is about gathering adherents
Sometimes it's about achieving enlightenment
right but in terms of a religions survival or practice enlightenment is only valid so long as it draws people to the faith. your religion could be as enlightened as it could be but if theres no-one practicing it, it doesnt exist
Well, you do not people to be drawn to the faith if you do it by the sword.
you're concerned about optics of the act itself. religions are not concerned about that, given enough time it gets memory holed
Look at the Caliphates, the Roman Empire, Scandinavia...
it can, especially if your not the person being hit by the sword
Fair.
ill put a caveat on my point though in that absolute numbers of religious adherents doesnt make a faith any more or less viable