IT HAPPENED

Ottomans are from West Asia. Them controlling parts of European territory doesn't make them European.

Yeah, and so did Berbers, Arabs, and Mongols. None of those are European.

Outside of silk china barely had an effect outside of its own borders in asia let alone the fricking world at that point.

No, go ahead and tell me about all the great Chinese cultural and technological advancements being exported to the entire world. At this point you've got, what, glass, silk, gunpowder and herbal """medicine"""? That shits only going to Europe, the mid east and parts of Asia. By size, population and economic power, china would consistently hit below its weight and then go on to get bullied by people that actually did export culture and products to the entire world (obviously post medieval, nobody was doing anything "the world over" in that period)

pretty much all developed in europe as well and China still got raped by mongols and every other turkic horde

cry more zhang

>siege weaponry
Rome and the Byzantine Empire
>semi-automatic crossbows
They were shit since they had no draw weight
>fully-automatic crossbow weaponry
See Above
>flamethrowers
Greek Fire predates gunpowder flamethrowers by a few centuries
>fiat currency
That's not a good thing
>water-powered air conditioning
That's just called a swamp cooler
>automata/other clockwork mechanisms
They existed in Bronze age Europe as well. Many rich temples had automatas.

>Trebuchets, mangonels, and bombs, which all phased out Roman torsion engines, originate in China.
Torsion engines were phased out because christcucks forgot how to make them. Mangonels were invented in China, yes, but counterweight trebuchets were invented in Byzantium and imported back to China through Persia.
>fully automatic crossbows
That were considered useless because of their extremely limited range. In fact the non-mounted versions were considered self-defense weapons for women and children.
>The history of Chinese clockwork seems to stretch back farther
Show me an ancient Chinese Antikythera mechanism and we'll talk.

t. not that anon

I know you you've been arguing with this other guy. I just want to come back in to say I don't deny chinese advancements like glass and gunpowder that I already listed, just that I took issue with you "world over" statement. I would also say that what was happening in Europe was by far more important than the rest of the world considering what would happen post medieval. Also the industrial revolution came from Europe and bo amount glass, porcelain, Confucius or government will ever compare. Gunpowder close but not quite

I'm not projecting importance backwards. Europe didn't suddenly spring up from the ground to dominate the world, it was all there before. Even going back to Rome and Greece. If we are speaking strictly medieval I would say the Mongols or turks had more far reaching consequences for the world than China. I would not really call them global though.

>You are.
Whatever
and Eastern siege weaponry
You can't deny the Europeans actually did something with it. They made all the guns cannons etc. The Chinese had it sooner but the implements were worse and the tactics were not there. When the turks were building the world's largest cannons, what were the Chinese doing with it? I also don't know what seige warfare has to do with it, considering castles were uniquely European (fortifications in general obviously not) and so were many implements used to attack them. That knowledge had little use outside of Europe and then mid east because either A) Enemy Fortifications were limited B) Fortifications were outdated (in the face of cannon and other weapons)
crops, silver, and lack of disease immunity
Opportunity
civil war, caused by emperor traveling north and catching the disease
Opportinity
>>All of the world's natural powers being subdued or ransacked by Manchus (China), southern Mongols (India), Mongols again (Baghdad), and Turks (Egypt)
Opportunity
coup with the perfect timing for advancement on the fall of the Mughal Empire
Opportunity
posing enough of a threat as the EIC expanded that the Maratha empire couldn't devote resources to pushing out the Bengali alliance.
Opportunity
>it's actually pretty easy to notice the massive jump from medieval Europe to modern Europe.
No shit, but just because it happened quickly doesn't reduce their achievements. When I say "opportunity" I mean that its an event that took place. You act like events only started taking place when the euro's showed up and that they got lucky or something and forgot all the setbacks. Everything you listed was happening all the time, everywhere. It was not unique in the slightest just an opportunity seized and taken. You are a joke if you think some sort of fate started looking out for European colonial expeditions and causing them some great success through no skill of their own.

>After everyone else had their turn refining it, yes.
When the Chinese were using gunpowder as herbal medicine the Euro's were figuring out what the real ratio of sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter were and removing all the dumb shit both people had been putting in. Your own link says the Chinese were importing gun technology 16th century onward.
>No, the Chinese and other Asians were way ahead of them there
Your own article says they were, that the Burgundians started making huge guns and that the Chinese didn't make any because they were ineffective, they were also making fewer cannons and later than Europe (source: your own link)
>Making similar guns
your own article says they weren't, that they had few large guns and cannons..... half the section you link about Chinese firearm history is just talking about what Europe was doing...
>Again, those implements came from China.
No, castles are contributed somewhat to the normans but they go back further to Rome. Chinese and euro castles were totally different, they had no contact. I said this in reference to Europe but I guess I should extent it to china too, no one people do not get to lay claim to the entire concept of fortifications.
>This wasn't about achievements, so I don't care.
It was in the context of which I was speaking. That being that taking colonial territory quickly is not somehow an indictment against them.
>You're saying medieval Europe necessarily feeds into modern Europe.
It obviously does
> I'm saying there's a massive disconnect, and that the actions and technology of old Europe weren't too important in forming the new Europe. Everything was external to begin with.
This is stupid since everything came from the medieval period and earlier. Guns, Ships, Navigation, metallurgy, Trade concepts, religion, government organization, and military doctrine. All the things that actually matter.

>This is ridiculous, especially attributing the caravel to china.
"Orient" can also refer to the middle east. The sails and ship bodies were obtained from neighboring Mediterranean influences. The Moroccan fishing vessel bodies, and the lateen sails, brought through Arabic sailors from Polynesia.
>Weather and disease were also no favor to Europe
They get near-perfect weather for farming, and their diseases killed off everyone in the New World for them, making complete replacement possible.
>You make such a bold statement but 9/10 out of bait that person into actually arguing and you'll make known some asinine belief like the one above.
All I'm seeing is denial.
>Nonsense
>Completely incomprehensible schizo babble that has no place in a serious historical discussion, have a nice day.
"No no no no no". Are you going to be okay?

Guys, just stop talking about it. You're not gonna convince the smart person that Europeans are the masterrace; and you're not gonna convince the skinhead that the non-Europeans contributed to humanity.

I didn't even read any of the posts. I just see two guys who are wasting their time.

>Europeans still use gunpowder for wound treatment today.
You know that's not what I'm talking about. They both put additives in that neither helped it be medicine or shoot harder. The euros were the ones that figured out the best mixtures.
>Yeah. It goes on the explain why later.
This isn't about why
>No, it says they stagnated around the time of the 14th century because they were ineffective in their primary role
You just repeated what I said with more words
>However, the core designs were Chinese.
In what way? Gunpowder is obviously inherently Chinese but I'd hesitate to say they own the tube. I'm gonna agree with the source you posted and say the Chinese were following euro designs.
>Similar as in similar shape and purpose, not similar size. They used small arms to fend off mongols.
And you don't think that may have contributed to their lack of artillery development?
>The siege weapons came from China.
Siege implements common in Europe go back to greece, rome, the mid east. Not china. They were developed independently by both peoples.
>The sails and ship bodies were obtained from neighboring Mediterranean influences. The Moroccan fishing vessel bodies, and the lateen sails, brought through Arabic sailors from Polynesia
Morocco isn't in the middle east. The boat was based on Portuguese fishing vessels, the sails had been in use in the med since the greeks in BC. East asian and Med triangle sails were invented by both people independently. Neither people brought them to each other.
>And all of those things being freely offered to Europeans isn't a credit to them either.
Cherry picking
>It hardly does.
Well the fricking fate fairy didn't grant it to them
>When you have uncontested control over the world's largest silver mine, a lot of that falls to the wayside.
Apparently, the entire world was devoid of any money generating resources, this is why euro's famously kept to themselves and never colonized the whole world.

>Congratulations?
Denial
>it's about the fact that they imported some of the advancements made on their own weapons
Euro's weren't importing cannons or cannon technology though. They didn't import gunpowder either, just the mixture for it. Real quick, to clarify, my basic argument is that china and Europe both developed and invented similar technology to each other independently. Sort of a telephone situation where 2 people not in contact make the same device because it is so ubiquitous. Like the spear or bow. Both sides weapons were of different syle, so to their fortifications, they didn't have contact. Everything traded was through friends of friends in India and the middle east.
>Check the Tang and Song pages.
Totally insular, no effect outside of china.
>I believe it was mainly the fact that no cannons, even as far as WW2, could actually beat their Rammed Earth walls.
My point is that it was stagnant, there's a reason for everything, it doesn't matter to me in this discussion.
>But the ones I outlined earlier
At least link the comment. It wasn't in a comment to me and this is a big thread now.
>I think you can infer just from these two seemingly-conflicting claims how the fishing vessel design arrived in Portugal.
umm, fishermen built it?
>I don't understand how it could take 15 centuries for a single sail plan to make its way from Greece to Portugal, but whatever.
It didn't.
>Fate fairy didn't give a shit about medieval Europe, it seems.
Clearly not, considering how many times it was completely devastated but went on to dominate the rest of the world.
>Value isn't objective. If it was, trade would be impossible.
Has nothing to do with what I said

>We're not continuing this.
I'm fine with that
>China was influential far beyond its borders and even the world over.
Absolutely not, China is known for being incredibly insular, it did not expand meaningfully territorial, economically or culturally. It was very content to sit and play with what it had. Thats why it got left behind despite inventing gunpowder and a few other things first. Europe was also like that until the Iberians decided to go exploring.
>Being "devastated" means nothing if no one can capitalize on it.
You act as though nobody tried, mongols, turks, etc.
>That's how fate works.
nonsense
>And Europe got an extra 2 continents at a time when they were best able to use them.
They were not granted, they went and took. They were best able to use them because they had them, not because of time.
>No. I will not. My view of history is more than credible, and if you'd told it to any pre-modern European, he may well believe it.
Its not and it doesn't matter what a man from 1700 would have thought about it. No shit a religious person may attribute success to god.
>Yes. Absolutely.
Borderline heretical. God gave us freewill, things are not pre-ordained, and besides that there will be no more prophets sent to earth. God does not directly smite or appear to people anymore, the holy spirit fulfills that role and it is different to how things were in the past.

>They were thwarted by the logistical challenges that come with Europes biome, the distance from their major power centers, and then a relatively weak fortification from the days of Rome
The distance they traveled was nothing compared to what they had already done to get there in the first place. They were twarted by good defense, the euro's didn't roll over in spite of conditions. I think Iberia during the Muslim invasions is a good example.
>That all?
Nothing that was not mentioned in the bible is set in stone.
>What, and you're not?
Theres a reason people thank god for "the opportunity" during award speeches and such. Just as you should not spite god when bad things happen the opposite is also true. However, Pray for it and god may open the path to you, though it is up to you, ultimately to walk down it. This is free will, which was granted to you by god. Obviously, I thank god for all he has presented to me. Taking that further, like it sounds like what you are doing, is how you get Joel Olsteen types literally praying for money, power and success and telling others if they follow christ they will be rich.
>You know God takes an active interest in the events of the Earth, as evidenced by His many interventions in the OT.
Yes, but he will send no more prophets. Today he works through the holy spirit.
>Pelagianism has never been valid. Semi-pelagianism has never been valid.
Not talking about that. That is the idea man could reach divine perfection alone through his will. What I am saying is that god has granted us choice. If you do not have free will then the choice to between the apple or to listen to god was worthless and not real. It invalidates the point of the story. God may know what you will do, or every path you could take but you are ultimately responsible for taking it.

>And when the Khan died?
Their longevity is not the point. They destroyed a lot of places but never got europe or china. You act as though there's only one active player in history and everyone else is just static.
>Spaniards just grabbed whatever snippets of land were released during the fighting. Eventually, they obtained enough to push out the war-weary Berbers and remaining Arabs. Congratulations. You won because Arabs are shitheads.
You could reduce all of history to this if you wanted. "oh wow the allies managed to beat the war-weary B unit conscripts guarding the Atlantic wall how impressive" As long as you ignore everything that actually happened.
>Why would the rest of reality play by different rules?
It doesn't, but what was prophesized in the bible will come. However, it has nothing to do with what men want. You could not forcefully fulfill the conditions, they will happen when they are supposed to. If there is no free will, there is no point in following god. Thats all I will say and every major religion agrees
>If God wants to bless someone, then no matter their faith, it's done.
God is not a vending machine dispensing prizes
>No, it's very real. It's the cause of our current condition.
The tree was there to illustrate their choice. Without the option of right or wrong, there is no choice, no free will. Had there been no tree Adam could not have sinned because the option simply wasn't there, not because he was righteous. This is why it is important that christ was tempted by satan, when he was given the choice, he chose not to sin. That is what made him righteous.
>You bear responsibility for your actions
If it is all predetermined and god granted us no will of our own then it is useless. You don't have any action. Of course, your view is heretical and goes against catholicism, the orthodoxy and (most) protestant sects (as I assume you call yourself some form of protestant)

>They got China. It's an open basin that's nearly impossible to defend once an army's in.
Just raiding, never conquered I believe.
>Europe was a heavily-forested continent with more than a few solid mountain ranges, a ton of rivers, solid winters, and a shredded coastline.
China may be flatter but its also gigantic and has way more angry militia forming peasants than Europe. Its not inherently easy to conquer or something that's ridiculous.
>No, I act like geography matters.
Its a force multiplier, nothing more. It is not some singular factor. You are acting like it is.
>Alright. Tell me what "actually" happened.
Go look into it then. Reconquista was a long and arduous process. I don't want to start going on about some famous general or battle because you already provided your response to that below
>What, did a Spaniard make a rousing speech before jumping in as a third party?
Yeah, pretty much. They had been making opportunistic raids and prods into Islamic territory pretty much the whole time.
>Life isn't some funny allegory. There's not a "point".
There is a point, even if we don't know exactly what it is.
>Adam was designed to fall. The Christ wasn't. That's all.
They were designed with the possibility to fail. Christ was tempted and he rejected it, adam was as well and he did not. If there is no free will then there is no lesson to be learned from either of these people. You will do as what was pre-determined and so nothing matters. It makes for a hollow relationship with god because it means some people are just fricked regardless of there faith. They were made but god does not want them. This is ridiculously heretical, god wants anyone who seeks him. Simple as
>I'm a Calvinist.
That explains a lot, extremely heretical. God will save anyone who sincerely seeks him.

>the Yuan dynasty was literally the Mongol dynasty. They ruled China.
I did not know this
>Most of it was Iberians waiting for one side of the conflict to show weakness or call on them for help, then snatch and keep whatever they could take from the Muslims.
nothing wrong with good strategic sense, you would think someone on the STRATEGY board would be more understanding of that.
>What, did scripture point you to that, too?
Did it say that life was meaningless and completely devoid of purpose?
>God designed them for a purpose, not only in form, but in fate.
Adam wasn't "made to fail" he was simply made with will of his own which god allowed him to act upon by giving him the opportunity and allowing the snake in the garden. Adam knowingly turned away from god, he didn't have to.
>You will do as you were fated, and God's will is made manifest.
There is no fate.
>If you have faith, it's because you were given that faith by God (John 6:44), and you're made to act on it.
Not exactly, the rest of the chapter includes more people than the ones "given" to jesus

“Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For on him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

"35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty."

"40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

"45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me."

The bible is clear even in the chapter you referenced, all who seek god will find him.

>They were just an extra in the Berber-Arab conflicts, which you brought up as something in their favor.
Did they not fight hard, bravely and smartly? Preserve themselves to fight battles they could win? We are on a strategy board. Its easy to look back and say it was so easy, but in the moment it is hard to be certain of anything.
>No, you said that, and I'm asking why.
I did not say that, I don't believe that. We all have a purpose though all of us may not know exactly what that is.
>What, and did God have no intention in bringing the question?
I do not understand your meaning.
>Explain prophecy.
Fate is a general concept that everyone is being moved around through life by something other than them. That regardless of what they do, they will remain in the same circumstances. Prophecy is much more specific, it applies more to events that will come to pass. You could use them kind of interchangeably but fate is accepted to be a general concept, applied to everyone while prophecy is more specific. Prophecy is also known in advance, fate is not. Its your life is on a rail road track vs an event that will take place.
>The ones who seek are those chosen ahead of time by God as His gift to Christ.
This was not said in the passage, they are separate groups of people. Some were given, some were not. All who seek will not be driven away.

"37 All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."
" 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."
"40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”
"44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
>Then why do you act like it's a counter-argument?
To what? What is the point of punishing people who had no fault?

>Anon, just give up. Again, most of the work was ultimately done by Mauritanians for their own reasons.
Whatever your belief in historical determinism stems from your religion, likewise my hatred for historical determinism stems partially from mine. Neither of us will be moved. I think we have taken that discussion as far as it will go.
>You claimed it was the conclusion of my statement. You're clearly getting it from somewhere.
If there is no choice in life there is no point. You are just a puppet controlled by something else. Being good is not a virtue achieved, it was something given to you that others do not have. If you sin it is not your fault. God told you to sin. Its an asinine belief that removes all personal responsibility from life and if true, invalidates the human experience since you were just along for the ride.
> It's not that nothing they do can change their circumstance. It's that the things they do won't prevent them from reaching the things which are meant to be.
That certainly is one way of looking at a concept that isn't really explicitly mentioned in the bible

>And the ones who seek are the ones who were chosen.
Anyone who seeks is chosen, it is the other way around.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."

>No one said there's no choice.
You did, you said that its is all predetermined.
>It's heavily implied by predestination.
Made up bullshit mentioned no where. God can know all things without life being on a single track. You already accept this when you say there is choice but that it leads to the same place. If there is any granularity at all in how you do things then god does not know all things. This is why a deterministic view makes no sense, it limits god and reality.
>What would be the point of saying "Chosen" if it just refers to anyone who seeks?
Partially left over from the people of Israel and to imply the transition from them to all men.
>Again, doesn't affect my argument.
well if you just ignore them they don't.
>Read. https://www.openbible.info/topics/hell
hell is second death

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,"

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

"The Lord preserves all who love him, but all the wicked he will destroy."

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

"The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

"They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"

The lake of fire is a second death after judgement, that is the eternal punishment. You'd think jesus and others would have mentioned that you receive eternal life no matter what but they didn't, there is only one way to receive eternal life and that is with the lord.

>You did, you said that its is all predetermined.
Yes, it's predetermined. You still have a choice.
>Made up bullshit mentioned no where.
Again, Ephesians 1 and all throughout Peter 1&2. It's so explicit that you could not hope for more without Paul crawling out of the parchment to knock synergists on the head.
>If there is any granularity at all in how you do things then god does not know all things.
Again, non-sequitur.
>Partially left over from the people of Israel and to imply the transition from them to all men.
And what's the purpose of those verses exclaiming loudly the fact of predestination in election if not that the two are cleanly linked?
>well if you just ignore them they don't.
Again, you're confused. "Whoever" doesn't imply a person has any more ability or will to choose on his own than scripture suggests.
>hell is second death
46 And these will go away kinto eternal punishment, but the righteous kinto leternal life.”
"Worm does not die and the fire is not quenched"
"Weeping and gnashing of teeth"
Are we seriously entertaining annihiliationism?

>Then there is no choice.
That's not a logical conclusion of, "You made a choice".
>Predestination is made up nonsense reconciling the paradox that God is all knowing yet humans have free will. Through this you suppose he determined what you would do and how everything would play out in the world. Therefore he chooses who are saved and who are not. It places limits on reality because your tiny human brain is trying to understand how god works
This is pure nonsensical babble.
>No its not, you are arguing there can be no choice in life because God must know all things.
No, I said you made a choice, and that choice was secondary to God's choice.
>How does it make sense to you that God predetermined you would get a new job but not the route you took to get there?
Bind all possibilities that lead to the new job, identify common variables, then lead through said variables.
>Then its not just me who is confused, its basically all Christians who have a radically different interpretation
It's anyone who depends on an assumption exclusive to the KJV, which is in English.
>Yes, the bible is very clear and calls the lake of fire 2nd death. It is also very clear that the sinful will die.
I'm not prepared for this argument, so I'll leave it. I've looked into it, and a lot of the arguments are inferences made from the language or God's being. Nothing absolutely explicit for the common man.

>There is no choice in a predetermined world.
That's your own assumption. You won't find a Calvinist who agrees with you there.
>Call it whatever, that's the purpose of predestination. To solve a religious paradox.
No, we say it because scripture explicitly teaches it.
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
You either agree with scripture or you refuse its truth but don't claim to have some scriptural basis for your argument when you're just doing it for your own feelings.
>The orthodoxy and Catholics don't? They both maintain the same view, which I share. Most Prots do as well.
Because they're willing heretics.

>I've already posted part of the scriptural basis.
You aren't even reading your own quotes. None of them support your statement. They just say the obvious--that those who seek Christ will find him. EVERYONE BELIEVES THAT. You don't even comprehend what the Calvinist position is, but you vehemently despise it and make poor arguments against it.
>I will not convince you to stop being calvanist and you will not convince me to stop being babptist.
You could've just said this from the start.

>And you believe people who seek him were simply made holy while the unwashed plebs can get fricked
No, they were marked out ahead of time to choose God, regardless of their class.
>ANYONE can seek christ anyone can find redemption in him.
Yes, can. Everyone CAN. Not everyone WILL. The fact that some men are hellbound makes this obvious. You all believe God leaves the "Will" to chance and the stupidity of human men. We say He takes an active interest in this, as scripture explicitly states.
>Like I said our 2 camps have been arguing about predestination since before Jesus and the Bible, we aren't going to solve it here.
It's already been solved. Just read

>There is no choice in a predetermined world.
That's your own assumption. You won't find a Calvinist who agrees with you there.
>Call it whatever, that's the purpose of predestination. To solve a religious paradox.
No, we say it because scripture explicitly teaches it.
1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
You either agree with scripture or you refuse its truth but don't claim to have some scriptural basis for your argument when you're just doing it for your own feelings.
>The orthodoxy and Catholics don't? They both maintain the same view, which I share. Most Prots do as well.
Because they're willing heretics.

until you stop being a synergist. It's so explicit that any other interpretation is impossible.

Whatever. You're just being contrarian.

>And who made that soil good, if not God?
The soil is men's hearts. Not everyone who hears the gospel will be in the same place in life. Christ is literally called the redeemer. Why do you insist that people can not be redeemed simply because of how they were made?
>Once again, faith begins with God and is received as a gift by some men, those men having been chosen before time (Eph 1) for predestination unto Christ
As Christ teaches it is for anyone who seeks him. This is why christ repeats the same line several times about ways to be "raised on the last day"

>They can be redeemed. They simply will not be.
Christ was sent to all men. The Chosen people were the israelites. They reject christ and are no longer. Any who accept christ are chosen.
>Yes, and it only applies to those who seek Him.
Yes
>Let me ask you: Are there now men burning in Hellfire for sins the Christ's sacrifice has already paid for? Is Salvation currently being nullified? The only answer which preserves Christ's integrity is the former.
There are no men burning in hellfire. The only way to receive eternal life is through Christ. There is nothing in the bible about being alive for all eternity while demons stab your taint, the divine comedy was fanfiction about is own self doubt and fear.

>Matt. 13:13
Jesus is speaking of israelites (and those like them) who at the time denied, denied, denied. They saw his miracles, heard his sermons, did not understand his teachings, and did not seek him.
>And if they don't seek God?
They will not enter the kingdom of heaven

18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

>This is ridiculous, especially attributing the caravel to china.
"Orient" can also refer to the middle east. The sails and ship bodies were obtained from neighboring Mediterranean influences. The Moroccan fishing vessel bodies, and the lateen sails, brought through Arabic sailors from Polynesia.
>Weather and disease were also no favor to Europe
They get near-perfect weather for farming, and their diseases killed off everyone in the New World for them, making complete replacement possible.
>You make such a bold statement but 9/10 out of bait that person into actually arguing and you'll make known some asinine belief like the one above.
All I'm seeing is denial.
>Nonsense
>Completely incomprehensible schizo babble that has no place in a serious historical discussion, have a nice day.
"No no no no no". Are you going to be okay?

>I guess we just gonna forget all the famines and that one time 2/3rd of it was wiped out by disease huh?
Human mismanagement is more than possible, and yes, the black plague did hit Europe. This doesn't affect anything. "Bad things happened to Europe too" doesn't say anything about the contrivances that came to it.
>All I see is cope
Again, denial.
>?
It's not hard to see, anon.

My third comment
>I just want to come back in to say I don't deny chinese advancements like glass and gunpowder that I already listed, just that I took issue with you "world over" statement.
But whatever, you can ignore it to epically own all the racists on Ganker if you want 🙂

I assumed you were the other guy.

>The Moroccan fishing vessel bodies, and the lateen sails, brought through Arabic sailors from Polynesia.

this is schizo tier

"Orient" means more than just China, anon. We covered all of this. Just read.

He's not wrong. Orient generally refers to Asia as a whole.

>The Mongols existed on the Fringes of China and were only able to conquer as they did due to the natural spread of technology. Mongols have a long history with China.
Sorry, forgot to mention my original line was not complete it should read "than china or Europe during the medieval period". Was phone posting on my lunch break at the time.

the absolute state of /vst/

because people told me its pozzed so it should fail or else it will look bad for the go woke go broke theorem

yeah i guess like the girls in the game are super pozzed and other stuff

>Precolonial America is a different world than modern America.
Literally the exact same place.

Literally the exact same place. Come at me.

I know, and I'm just screwing with the guy. Say something dumb, get something dumb.