[Sinfest] Appalachia II
(sinfest.xyz)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
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.
For the people we're talking about violence is so normalized that they don't question their actions in the slightest. I'm not sure if you are aware how normal extreme violence was during that time.
Yes. One is honest, the other is hypocritical. Because in the end they both did it for the same exact reasons. Be it greed, rage or simply bowing down to authority.
And that's where we seem to be of very different opinions. I take honest evil over hypocritical and deceitful evil any day of the week.
On the one side you had the Norse who pillaged and conquered themselves for their own greedy gains. On the other side you have an organised religion who pillaged and conquered to live in disgusting luxury but manipulated others into doing it for them while shrouding themselves in moral superiority.
The Church spilled more European blood than probably any other group. And don't deceive yourself into thinking that they ever did it for noble reasons.
88% and 95% are basically guaranteed when you roll it, but 95% is still a bigger number and you'd probably pick those two if the option was presented. Which means that difference clearly means something
Alternatively, one is naturally evil and the other is tempted to be.
You seem to be really mad at the Church itself, and don't realize that its not comparable to the Viking rank and fodder's willingness to commit evil on their own.
Unless the Vikings were doing it for their Gods in which case the Christians were still the lesser evil because the Christian God is pretty clear in not doing that stuff that the corrupt Church was pushing, whereas the Viking ones tell them to straight up do most of it.
Sure. A more violent society that is capable of defending themselves is preferable to a society that slaves away for a corrupt clergy class while getting pillaged.
The Christian God is pretty clear in not doing that stuff? So basically only the Amish, Mennonites, Jehovas Witness and other pacifist variations of Christianity are real Christians? The Church despite being the very foundation of Christianity aren't real Christians? The first testament isn't real Christianity?
Let's not pretend that Christianity hasn't been extremely violent for most of its existence. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all the same. Just tailored to different people.
So we went from 'they both rape and pillage but one is more honest' to "they are just capable of defending themselves unlike those losers lol" Again, just relabelling it over and over to be "thing I like good, thing I like bad."
A great example of someone whose point is based on emotion and working backwards from it.
I know this may be shocking to you. But the Church is made up of humans. Something that is known to be flawed, temptable and corruptable. Its actually a pretty important piece of that book they teach from, and them putting on the fancy hat or learning to read from the book doesn't suddenly make them perfect and the allure and temptations of power will be stronger than most men.
Also pacifism isn't a Christian tenant. Jesus pretty clearly says to always be armed even if you have to sell the clothes off your back. Thinking it is so reveals a pretty lackluster understanding of what it actually teaches.
You've moved the goalpost entirely from "The Vikings were better people in doing it" to now just wanting to say "Christianity has been super violent throughout history" which no one said otherwise. This is just a "Christians bad" spiel from 2000s reddit trying to pretend otherwise.