Any reason why an evangelical or traditionalist should remain in the Episcopal Church and not leave and go to the ACNA or other group?
I am looking to impose myself a new challenge and after obtaining an imperial victory, another for the Shogunate and a third as a Republic, I am thinking about how it would be to obtain a victory playing with the technological limitation of the Shogun 2 vanilla. For now, one of the conditions that occurred to me is to prevent the clan development level from exceeding level one, which would limit the player to research only the first tier of technologies. Then, try to balance the construction of cities with buildings that eliminate the modernization of the same, such as provinces with Buddhist temples, dojos and inns. And of course, the most important part, the army is prohibited from using any "modern" unit, that is, any units produced in the barracks or the artillery range. The main disadvantage that I found to this is the fact that it does not have any decent navy, leaving the coasts of the provinces exposed to bombardment and trade routes to constant assaults. Dealing with this is one of the biggest challenges, because even a traditional army can defeat a modern one as long as it does not attack it head-on and you can choose the terrain to fight, such as mountains and forests, and make the most of ambushes.
What do you think? How would you build your provinces to maximize your income from them but keeping modernization to a minimum and what kind of armies would you create?
The United States is rich in wealth. Cuba is rich in spirit. The people of Cuba possess an even more valuable wealth than we do, & their suffering has made them closer […]. We'd be wise to learn from their faith rather than export our degenerate capitalism to them.
Inspired by the spag bol post yesterday. I use soy sauce or fish sauce in place of salt in a lot of sauces.
Karl Marx is the father of modern social science, but he didn’t do much to provide for his wife and children. The CCP adulates him but censors women who complain about sexual harassment. This doesn't make sense to me. One ought to have one of two approaches to life (and I am talking below about American standards):
- the left-wing approach (by which men like Marx and women like Mary Ann Evans are great minds, regardless of them being ultimately unattractive because of men’s preference for beauty and women’s hypergamy)
- the traditionalist approach (by which idealistic policies have unforeseen consequences, and women like Evans and men like Marx are insufficiently maternal and poor money-makers, respectively).
Don’t you think that a government that gives men a pass to be leftist personalities should tolerate the same thing in women?
I mean, perhaps one could argue that I'm making a false analogue above as Evans was not a genuine feminist (just an advocate of women's equal access to education)...and that advocates of western feminism are actually more like the capitalist men (well within their own gender) rather than like Karl Marx...but that's for another discussion...
I'd imagine that they wouldn't oppress them because of their pacifism and history of tolerating refugees, unlike humanity in so many Transformers continuities alone, but how they'd interact with them would be interesting.
-Would they generally allow them to be used as farm equipment? Many do allow for some tech use for business purposes.
-Would they be willing to ride in self-driving cars for distances that are out of easy horse-and-buggy or bicycle range?
-Would they embrace robotics for disaster relief purposes, for instance fire prevention? Could robot-enhanced rescue services make it easier for them to get around fire safety codes?
-Could outsourcing defense and public safety to robots allow for a full-fledged Amish or Mennonite nation-state to emerge?
Hi There!
I am planning to unite with likeminded brits, and traditionalists, And I'd like for this community full of based people to be apart of that.
r/nationalbritannia is the subreddit I made, I'm going to be offering to similar subreddits so we can gain more members.
As a token of goodwill, I've put this subreddit under my subreddits "recommended subreddits", as fellow friends.
Thanks for listening, and have a good one.
Happy New Year!
- SamRedditMoment
I would say that the best way for progressive scholars, particularly someone like Mufti Abu Layth should teach and to make a new generation of scholars. Not to bestow a title but rather to provide knowledge and understanding of the religion from a different angle. If someone takes on let's say 20 students in their life, those twenty can take on their own students and slowly start to make real change. It's entirely up to the people who are progressive to teach or not, they have no obligation but it is a good way to get information out there and to make real change. Simply putting out YouTube videos is generally not enough to make change on a large scale, teaching even if it's online, writing books, setting up institutions, and so on is how you disseminate information among a large group of people.
If the traditionalists have their own scholars, the best way to combat the prevailing narrative would be to have your own scholars, if they have books, you should have books. While "progressive" is extremely broad and there are differences among people who are scholars, taking on students, especially if you're trained in Hadith studies and if you're a Mufti is not a bad way to actually spread the truth.
Most people in general are not going to mess about with looking at different books, researching and so on, many traditionalists do not even do this. They generally have a scholar or local Imam who they ask and the Imam is obviously a traditionalist, in order to combat this, surely the best way would be to have people who are able to defend their positions and ideas rather than being a small group of people who see Islam as a personal connection to God rather than an intellectual movement which ought to be defended.
TLDR: How would a short lived race remain traditionalist and want to return to “the good old days” despite the living members of the race having no memory of said “good old days”
For one of my DnD campaigns there’s a major race of Orcs that in the past 100 or so years has been undergoing some major cultural shifts. After their defeat at the hands of a coalition of human kingdoms many tribes are starting to give up their previous warlike ways, admittedly a stereotype as even before this many tribes were exclusively warlike, and settling into more… modest? lives. The problem is I still want to have traditionalist Orcs who want to go back to the days of Orcish domination of the continent but I’m also leaning towards Orcs having a super short lifespan, in part to justify why they so aggressively expand and such. How would a race that let’s say lives about 25 years remain traditionalist and stuck in past ways for over 100 years despite none of the current members of their race being alive at the time?
I doesn't take a genius to notice that Trads tend to be really bitter online; they also seem inclined to gossip and conspiracy theory. Why do you think this is the case or not the case?
FYI, Traditionalist Catholicism is a form of Roman Catholicism that rejects later developments after the Second Catholic Council in the 20th century. Unfortunately, because of its conservative practices and beliefs, it inevitably attracted far-right types, who used it to refer themselves as "TradCath".
The TradCath subculture, especially the online version, could be somewhat hostile towards people who aren't European or straight. Considering that their subculture can be hostile towards non-Christians in general, and they sometimes celebrate the Crusades and other past controversies, I wonder what is Traditionalist Catholicism's stance on neopagans, like Asatru and Rodnovery?
This is not an attack on Catholicism, but I just want to know what is Traditionalist Catholicism's stance on neopagan religions. Thank you.
