It's amazing that you even think the sole factor here is "christianity" not "which one did the bidding of their masters better".
Of course Egypt "got soft" they were attacked by "isrealites" and had their cultures, and tech destroyed.
And it was way better ruled by Priests btw. The Gods choose their champions well, only the fucking isrealites who hated egypt wrote lies about them.
Also, much more than 1000 years in a row, last I check, is doing a lot fucking better than we are right now, now ain't we?
Egypt didn't go soft, they were blindsinded by attacks they couldn't have foreseen, due to the nature of occult warfare.
And Rome was literally destroyed because christians subverted their pagan culture, using the same fucking tactics as commies today, and rewrote history to cover their tracks. That's like saying "oh the commies did so well, cuz they lasted longer than national socialism, so ergo communism better, dur hur"
Your metrics of success are all sorts of fucked up.
Seriously, this "wow the christian nations surived so long" is both silly, and hardly stands up to scrutinity. The White Supremacists explanation of genetics makes more sense than this.
The Church holding back science for centuries did far more harm to our "advancement" if you can even call it that.
Ah, right, I forgot, they had different names back then. "Cannanites" they called themselves for a time, and well different things before then in babylonia era.
In the end, they're the ancestors of the isrealites, don't care enough to spell it right. They were the ones who caused Babylonia to fall too, but that's so far back, it'll take the Gods return and them literally explaining it themselves, to prove that, lol, so no point in getting into that.
They weren't "established" but they sure as shit were warring with them for a long time as bandits.
Also, Progress means several things, namely spiritual advancement, as the Pharohs bloodlines and the aristocracy grew very powerful in these times, sadly they got cheap shot by uninvited guests to the planet. They made actual lasting progress, with tech that still stands today, that we who lack understanding of Tesla's theories of free energy can't reproduce, and yet the pyramids stand, generators of free energy the egyptians used well, (and the muslims nearly completely destroyed because of course)
As for the centuries we actually advanced as societies in Europe, would first be the Protestant Reformation, which was in fact a rejection of the church, don't think I need to explain that one.
The next time would be the Renaissance, which was preceded by the ousting of the jewish elite, the bankers and politicians that stifled free thought. This resulted in tremendous lose in church power, tremendous returns to Greco-Roman era of thinking, still seen today that our Founders emulated, speaking of.
The Founders were a rejection of the Church of England, and finally ripped the band-aid off of the church controlling the government in any meaningful way, allowing the Founders (The important ones being Secretly occultists and freemasons before the organization was corrupted). So those are the rejections of the church that led to our advancement here in our great United States.
Think I avoided any "ad hom" or "dodging" well enough, lol.
Ah and, as to why the Eastern Empire lasted longer, really that's your best argument? The Church consolidated power, and held a tight grip, but it quickly started loosing much of it's territory and was plagued with crime and raids from Muslims. That's not really much "progress" made there. So much progress made, when your empire is getting sacked and raped by savages oh yes, much progress. I guess for the church who hated white people, yeah, but for the actual people, not really.
The Renaissance was 200 years before the Reformation, you're ass backwards again. And it was in no way a rejection of the church. Have you ever seen Renaissance art? Or listened to Renaissance music? Talk about brainwashed, whoever sold you on this narrative lied to you. Don't take my word for it, go look at some. You are being used, your beliefs are based on obvious untruths.
The Reformation was in no way a rejection of Christianity. It came about largely because of people reading Bibles. Church attendance went up.
You said that the only time Europe advanced was when they rejected the church, but the first advance you can name was in 1400, when Europe was already richer than Rome ever got and hugely more advanced than what was left when the Empire collapsed. You've just ignored 900 years of progress between 500 - 1400 A.D.
The Eastern Empire got bigger well after Rome fell.
BTW Babylon fell over around 500 BC. It's not particularly ancient at all. The records for it are much better preserved than for the Assyrians before them. The Persians destroyed them, BTW, not Canaanites.
That's factually crap. The Egyptians fell apart as a civilisation once before the Hebrews even existed as a people and the second time they fell apart was not due to Israel either.
It goes:
Old Kingdom 3000 BC to 2150 BC,
First Intermediate Period (i.e. collapse) 2150 - 2000 BC,
Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1600 BC, Second Intermediate Period 1600 - 1500 BC,
New Kingdom 1500 - 1100 BC
Third Intermediate Period 1100 BC - 650 BC
Late period 650 BC - Roman times.
So, 'facts' you've spouted:
"Egypt had 3000 continuous years of progress" No. It managed 1000 years one time.
"It was better when the priests ruled" No. The Intermediate periods were low points. Egypt lost wars and produced nothing notable.
"It's the isrealites". No. It's spelled Israelites, and they didn't even come into being as a nation until 1500 BC. The Egyptians were conquered by Libyans, Persians, Nubians, Greeks, and Romans. It's possible but unlikely that the Hyksos had something to do with Israel, but they were more likely Philistines.
Oh, Egypt prospered for 30 centuries in a row, did they? Never went soft and got conquered? Never got ruled by priests and bureaucrats?
If you're going to pretend to be some sort of authority on Egypt, it might pay you to have at least heard of the Intermediate periods.
Egypt never managed much more than 1000 years in a row, they had to rebuild three times.
PS The Western Roman Empire was mixed Christian / pagan. The Eastern Empire was Christian. Which one fell over 1000 years before the other?
It's amazing that you even think the sole factor here is "christianity" not "which one did the bidding of their masters better".
Of course Egypt "got soft" they were attacked by "isrealites" and had their cultures, and tech destroyed.
And it was way better ruled by Priests btw. The Gods choose their champions well, only the fucking isrealites who hated egypt wrote lies about them.
Also, much more than 1000 years in a row, last I check, is doing a lot fucking better than we are right now, now ain't we?
Egypt didn't go soft, they were blindsinded by attacks they couldn't have foreseen, due to the nature of occult warfare.
And Rome was literally destroyed because christians subverted their pagan culture, using the same fucking tactics as commies today, and rewrote history to cover their tracks. That's like saying "oh the commies did so well, cuz they lasted longer than national socialism, so ergo communism better, dur hur"
Your metrics of success are all sorts of fucked up.
Seriously, this "wow the christian nations surived so long" is both silly, and hardly stands up to scrutinity. The White Supremacists explanation of genetics makes more sense than this.
The Church holding back science for centuries did far more harm to our "advancement" if you can even call it that.
"Literally every time we advanced as a society in Europe, it was a specific rejection of the church. You people still don't realize the obvious."
OK, mister historical expert, which centuries did Europe advance in between 500 and 2000 AD, and how was the church rejected in that century?
I eagerly await your ad hom or blatant dodge of the question.
PS If Christianity destroyed Rome, why did the Eastern Empire at Constantinople last another 1000 years?
Ah, right, I forgot, they had different names back then. "Cannanites" they called themselves for a time, and well different things before then in babylonia era.
In the end, they're the ancestors of the isrealites, don't care enough to spell it right. They were the ones who caused Babylonia to fall too, but that's so far back, it'll take the Gods return and them literally explaining it themselves, to prove that, lol, so no point in getting into that.
They weren't "established" but they sure as shit were warring with them for a long time as bandits.
Also, Progress means several things, namely spiritual advancement, as the Pharohs bloodlines and the aristocracy grew very powerful in these times, sadly they got cheap shot by uninvited guests to the planet. They made actual lasting progress, with tech that still stands today, that we who lack understanding of Tesla's theories of free energy can't reproduce, and yet the pyramids stand, generators of free energy the egyptians used well, (and the muslims nearly completely destroyed because of course)
As for the centuries we actually advanced as societies in Europe, would first be the Protestant Reformation, which was in fact a rejection of the church, don't think I need to explain that one.
The next time would be the Renaissance, which was preceded by the ousting of the jewish elite, the bankers and politicians that stifled free thought. This resulted in tremendous lose in church power, tremendous returns to Greco-Roman era of thinking, still seen today that our Founders emulated, speaking of.
The Founders were a rejection of the Church of England, and finally ripped the band-aid off of the church controlling the government in any meaningful way, allowing the Founders (The important ones being Secretly occultists and freemasons before the organization was corrupted). So those are the rejections of the church that led to our advancement here in our great United States.
Think I avoided any "ad hom" or "dodging" well enough, lol.
Ah and, as to why the Eastern Empire lasted longer, really that's your best argument? The Church consolidated power, and held a tight grip, but it quickly started loosing much of it's territory and was plagued with crime and raids from Muslims. That's not really much "progress" made there. So much progress made, when your empire is getting sacked and raped by savages oh yes, much progress. I guess for the church who hated white people, yeah, but for the actual people, not really.
The Renaissance was 200 years before the Reformation, you're ass backwards again. And it was in no way a rejection of the church. Have you ever seen Renaissance art? Or listened to Renaissance music? Talk about brainwashed, whoever sold you on this narrative lied to you. Don't take my word for it, go look at some. You are being used, your beliefs are based on obvious untruths.
The Reformation was in no way a rejection of Christianity. It came about largely because of people reading Bibles. Church attendance went up.
You said that the only time Europe advanced was when they rejected the church, but the first advance you can name was in 1400, when Europe was already richer than Rome ever got and hugely more advanced than what was left when the Empire collapsed. You've just ignored 900 years of progress between 500 - 1400 A.D.
The Eastern Empire got bigger well after Rome fell.
BTW Babylon fell over around 500 BC. It's not particularly ancient at all. The records for it are much better preserved than for the Assyrians before them. The Persians destroyed them, BTW, not Canaanites.
That's factually crap. The Egyptians fell apart as a civilisation once before the Hebrews even existed as a people and the second time they fell apart was not due to Israel either.
It goes: Old Kingdom 3000 BC to 2150 BC, First Intermediate Period (i.e. collapse) 2150 - 2000 BC, Middle Kingdom 2000 - 1600 BC, Second Intermediate Period 1600 - 1500 BC, New Kingdom 1500 - 1100 BC Third Intermediate Period 1100 BC - 650 BC Late period 650 BC - Roman times.
So, 'facts' you've spouted: