Quote Originally Posted by Luminous Terror View Post
Good lord that made me nearly cry from laughter. This is not a good foot to start on, and I don't know what's funnier, that you think that Isis is the same as Ishtar, or that you think Ishtar, a Sumerian goddess, is Indo-European. On what basis do you assert this?
Because the Sumerian were very likely Indo-Europeans. I'm aware that this is a contested view, but there's much that speaks for them being IE. If that is so, Ishtar is the original IE deity, which is also reflected in Aphrodite and Freyja.

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence
I'm sure you find the stuff yourself in a websearch about DNA testing showing that pharaos have "north-western European" DNA.

You probably also believe all the propaganda written about Caligula too
We have shrines to the god in Germania and Gaul predating the reign of Elagabalus, by the way.
In Germania? I dare to doubt it. Because the thing is that Germania Magna never was part of the Roman empire, so the movement of people was rather limited, and the post-CE conquest of now south-western Germany and Rhineland (west of the Rhine) is, well, a post-CE one, so along with "Roman" soldiers all the mideast rubble could move in.

But where is that alleged shrine supposed to be?

Except we also have Jewish writers complaining about Greeks corrupting the worship of their god by mixing it with their own, and we have Romans saying that the Jews do not honor "Iovis Sabazios" properly. And of course there were the Hypsistarians.
Yeah, the ails of a multikult society. We learn: stay among your own people and dont face the need to discuss such things in the first place.

Once again you claim a Sumerian goddess as Indo-European. Do you know the origins of Cybele at all?
The Phrygians were Indo-Europeans who moved into nowadays Anatolia.

And Mithras has no root in Proto-Indo-European mythology, he's a wholecloth creation of Zoroastrian ethics to personify truth. And I assure you, the Romans saw the Persians as very alien.
Most of all they saw them as enemies. But I wasnt talking about Mithras.

Hmmm yeah they did
They expected honour to "deified" Caesar, which isnt a problem for polytheists. It doesnt affect the conquered people's pantheon or religion at all. It became a problem for christians, denying that honour, and refused to serve the empire on many other levels whining "religious freedom", and this communist-leftist rubble now whines about "christian persecution". An attitude that is so typically Jewish that it screams.

Hmm, again extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Elagabalus was a priest who tried to elevate his deity, not replace the entire religion. And on what basis can you make that Septimus Severus, Caracala (who was half Gaulish, btw), Geta, and Philip the Arab tried to "replace the religion"?
The point I was making is that a FOREIGNER tried to "elevate" his people's (ethnic) deity. If he was so "Roman" as you claim, why would he do that? Of course he was not Roman, he was a Semite and brought his own deity with him.

Because religion is ethnic-based. Peoples/ethnicities/races have their own gods. The idea of a "universal" god is a judeo-christian one, which exported the Jewish Folk God to the Gentiles and claimed it's the god of all mankind. With all the negatives, and the ideologies that sprang from this view (mass migration, multikult, communism, all men are equal etc pp) that destroy our world today.

We better get rid of this corruption.

Given how much youve proved yourself to be a profoundly uneducated person, I'm not surprised you reduce the fall of Western Rome to simplistic answers. The fact that Rome continued on in the east for another thousand years
The Semitic Byzantine Empire is of no relevance for Western Europe, so why would I care? It's not the "Roman Empire" anymore, it's not European anymore. This one ceased to exist in 476CE, after the communist christian rubble had trashed the society, the culture, the rulership, the administration and everything, plunging the entirety of western Europe into the Dark Ages.

And then christards come and say look, there, the Semitic Byzantine Empire continued. You dont even share their religion, even though both called themselves "christian", but both sides would have burnt the adherents of the other on the stakes en masse for heresy, because the two credos were so fundamentally different. It's ridiculous, really.

The same goes for Arianism. It's conveniently claimed as "christian" by christian historic revisionists, but the truth is the adherents of Arianism were heavily persecuted and killed by both the Byzantines and Catholics. And today christians wave the Ulfilas Bible and say look at these early christians. That they got their "christianity" (which it really wasnt, it merely was an additional prophet to the pagan pantheons, probably not even a god) through the eastern route and not the Catholic version of "christianity", who cares. Mimimi christians. It's so ridiculous how it's all thrown together when in truth the various sects of christianity raged in war over each other crisscross through Europe - killing millions - to push through "their" "only real view of christianity".

But back to topic. I know it's modern to ignore the multi-ethnic composition of Rome as the source of its downfall, but it's most likely simply that. There was no more "Roman society" (and bestowing a Latin name onto a racial foreigner doesnt change what he is as today's passports dont change the racial reality of an immigrant either) at its downfall, it was ethnic clustering all the way.

Didnt I post the "Race Change in Ancient Italy" somewhere here already? It also contains a paragraph about how "propaganda" told the Romans that the slaves can do the reproduction and the "high society" can have a so much more fun hedonistic lifestyle (Just on what does that remind us? ). This trend goes from around 200CE straight through to the end of the West Roman Empire. It's rather save to assume (also from 3d/4th century catacomp bones) that there were next to no ethnic Romans left in Rome by the mid 5th century.

But hey, we ignore that and rather tell the fairy tale of "barbaric raids" that destroyed the great Roman Empire. But it was destroyed from the inside, by its multi-ethnic clustering, by the communist-christian propaganda, by Semites who had sneaked into the leading ranks and who had absolutely no interest to maintain the Roman Empire, quite the contrary. Hence the instigated "shism" and evidenced, actually, by that Byzantine continued to exist as a Semitic, more or less mono-racial empire, while the West was left to rot.