24-01-2026, 12:21 PM
(24-01-2026, 10:32 AM)RL_autist Wrote: There was no perception of things as natural or unnatural back then, you fucking retard. That distinction and consequent, typical for christards, fallacious 50 iq adoption of that dichotomy arose from natural philosophy aka protoscience centuries later. Why? Because religious concepts are literal ontological definition of basic (hence idiotic and extremely infantile from the perspective of everyone with half a brain living today)
Contextually speaking, good vs evil in 133 BC = natural vs unnatural from the middle ages (earlier too, but it was fringe and isolated on the west) and onwards
Stick with posting moronic pics that are supposed to feed schizo retards the delusion that they possess anything resembling the ability to comprehend
this post is laughably wrong, i dont think you know the etymology or roots of the words that you grossly use, but there has always been, since ancient times, not only the perception, conception and active engagement in techne, mimesis and so on, and so was the distinction between the 'artificial,' by such terms and more to that that is 'natural' as physis. you are speaking of those times as if they lived in swamps or mud huts, of course some did, such as the celts, but this does not mean much in the sense that i can act as if i can simply infer what their 'perception' about things was back then. so yes, there has always been a distinction of natural and unnatural that was not tied to ethics, morals or 'divine,' since thats what you are stupidly implying here, and in spite of that, today or in the past, despite the distinction having always been there, id say its dumb and meaningless to use such terms, or at least most of the times. whether protestants or whatever religious groups love to say or accuse that something is unnatural due to religious reasons, that still is of no concern to what is written or what Christ said
