[Sinfest] Appalachia II
(sinfest.xyz)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
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.
That tiny word "just" vastly changes the meaning. Good thing I never used it.
I agree. That is precisely the reason why I strongly dislike any and every monotheistic religion. The Bible wasn't written by God. It was written by humans. The Church isn't led by God it is led by humans.
I know. I was just nailing you on your argument that God is supposedly pretty clear on not doing "that stuff". If that is true that would mean Amish, Mennonites etc. would be the only ones following Gods words.
No. I said they were at least honest about it. I only brought up the violent nature of Christianity to point out the hypocrisy of Christianity.
Before you accuse me of being emotional you should stop putting words in my mouth.
Good thing what I said remains exactly the same if you excise it.
So we went from 'they both rape and pillage but one is more honest' to "they are 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."
Honestly, it was superfluous to begin with, likely a left over from a previous revision of the sentence.
It was a poor nail because the book is pretty clear on things that the Church did being sinful, no matter how they tried to spin it. Even if you say "the Church wrote the book not God" then its still pretty straight about a lot of basic concepts that they fail to uphold.
No, you posited that they were better for being honest about it. Which is where the disagreement all started, before you dropped it to continue to rant about Christianity bad as if this is enough to justify your argument on its own.
No. It doesn't.
No, we went from "honest" to "honest and able to defend itself". Also I never even suggested that the Norse way of life was "good". I said it was honest.
Which book? First or second testament? Which version of the Bible? Which translation? What about the Torah? If we take all factors in consideration like dead languages with cultural contexts that we know very little about, to monopolies over the written word combined with corruption, to missing archaeological evidence for much of the content of said book, plenty of contradictions as well as a plethora of different translations and versions of said book... saying "the bible says so" is worse than saying "trust the science".
The Bible isn't the Quran. It's not the written word of God. It's a collection of stories of various different authors that need to be interpreted. What makes you think that your interpretation is correct, while the Churches which is the very foundation of Christianity, isn't?
Which interpretation is correct? Catholic? Lutheran Protestant? US Evangelical Protestant? Amish? Mennonites? Jehovas Witness? Mormon?
Anyway you're delving into the "No true scotsman" territory. I guess just like Communism real Christianity hasn't been tried yet.
Organised monotheistic religions purpose is to control a population. Christianity is not native to Europe. It is an imported foreign religion that also happens to be based on Judaism.
Okay sure. If I had to choose between a violent but honest society or a violent but dishonest society I'd choose the first. I'd rather have someone rob me at gunpoint without him pretending that it is Gods will and absolving himself of responsibility. But I'd prefer not to be robbed at gunpoint at all. And that is something neither medieval Norse nor Christian society can offer.