[Sinfest] Appalachia II
(sinfest.xyz)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
That's probably quite wrong, and the criticism is probably more along the lines of Nietzsche decrying Christianity as a religion that worships weakness, and promotes slave morality, placing agency outside of the self.
I don't necessarily agree with Nietzsche's interpretation, though I get what he's aiming for, but the solution is probably not to return to a simple "might makes right" morality where you should kill anyone who challenges you, and enrich yourself with the enslavement of anyone who can't stop you, which is where a lot of that mindset inevitably leads, as aptly demonstrated in The Melian Dialogue, when that mindset was already the norm, and spooked the Athenians on just how fucking psychotic it really was. All you have to do is listen to the English recounting the Viking raids to understand how Norse morality might actually be a level of wicked that would probably deserve it's destruction and ruination.
It's an evil, twisted, warped version of Christianity, to encourage weakness and promote self-flagellation.
We are called to care for the sick and the weak. But how are we to do that if we are downtrodden ourselves? Our culture has turned victimhood into a virtue. But that's the subversion at work, taking advantage of the charity we are instructed to provide to those who cannot. Not to those who will not.
We were called to be as gentle as doves, but also as shrewd as serpents. It's easy for the feel-good gospel gang to warp this mandate into creating a flock of doves as prey for their machinations. Indeed, it's super MEAN and BIGOTED to be observant and judge things as they are. The Bible says don't judge, doesn't it? Actually, it says to judge not, for you will also be judged. It's a reminder that we're all fallen and equally in need of saving. Not that sin should be ignored because we're all sinners so that makes it okay.
And repentance. We're not supposed to wallow in our failings and let them shackle us. We're supposed to admit to them and improve. Go and sin no more, as our Teacher put it. Some of the greatest heroes of the Bible were horrific sinners. David, the man after God's Own Heart, was also a lustful adulterer and conspiratorial murderer. It was his contrition and repentance that let him move on and recover from his terrible stumbling. Who do you trust more? The man who admits his faults and owns up to them, or the man who insists there's nothing wrong with him and everything wrong is everyone else's fault?
The problem we have is that Christianity, what it's actually supposed to be, has been supplanted culturally with a theme-park facsimile of itself. A literal strawman to be toppled over at will by the usual suspects. Containing just enough truth to sell the lie and inoculate society from the actual truths that our culture was built on.
Yeah, I don't disagree with any of this. It seems that the best way to call it out is to point out that these are all Leftist heresies that are hell bent on destroying Christendom.
It's interesting to compare and contrast Christianity and Islam.
Christianity originated when its founder, a religious reformer, was killed.
Islam originated when its founder, a religious reformer (and self-proclaimed prophet), died of natural causes after having united almost all the Arab peoples into one hell of a fighting force that quickly conquered most of the world from Spain to China.
Jesus' messaging includes statements like "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's...." This is a reminder that early Christians were persecuted by the Jewish rules and later, to some degree, Romans (though Roman persecution is way overhyped). Many Christians have a mentality of identifying with the downtrodden, the persecuted, those outside of power, etc.
Islam, to the contrary, does not have this same emphasis on self-preservation in the face of hostile political or religious organizations. Islam, during the time of Muhammad, militarily defeated his opposition! Thus some of the gravest crimes in Islam are related to apostasy and turning away from Islam (historically apostasy was a death penalty crime, and it still is today in some countries).
Without getting too long winded, yeah, I think there's an old strain of Christianity that DOES focus on the "turn the other cheek" (and not the rest of the quote), the "render unto Caesars" and the "blessed are the poors."
And, to be fair, Islam and Christianity share an awful lot in common in terms of moral teaching. THere's a big emphasis on charity, helping the downtrodden, etc.
Mohammed was by no means a reformer, and was far closer to a violent revolutionary warlord, who murdered all opposition and post-hoc rationalized everything he did.
You think Christian morality was any better when it came to pillaging, raping and murdering? Especially when it came to heresy? At least the Vikings were honest and didn't pretend to be holier than thou while committing atrocities.
Unironically yes.
Where you see raping and pillaging, you see a catholic priest typically behind making post hoc rationalizations why it's totes okay this time. For Protestants, it would be the king explicitly doing the same thing after he's seized control of the church or declared himself the sole representative of God.
For the Norse, it was standard, it was common place, and it was moral to do so without justification.
So making religious excuses for your despicable actions makes those actions better? When I pillage a village because I admit it is because I want to rob them of their wealth it is bad but when I pillage a village and rob them of their wealth and excuse it away by saying they're dirty heathens it is better? That would make ISIS the most moral people on Earth.
They always had justification. Acquiring wealth and valuable farmland. And as the Christian clergy was so moral that they hoarded immense wealth they were the prime target for Norse raiders.
Yes because it shows that you need an excuse to do it instead of it being so normalized that you don't have an ounce of hesitation to even question doing it in first place.
Like, you see how a random person needed God to justify it before he went and started committing evil to be different from someone who just did it on his own, right. It doesn't make either good, it just makes one worse than the other.
You don't know anything about ISIS, then. They've never run apologetics for what they do.