The level of violence to preserve orthodoxy. Why was Christianity so violent and sectarian

The level of violence to preserve orthodoxy
Why was Christianity so violent and sectarian…
From the beginning of the early church where they accused gnostics heretics of sacrificing babies, to the Albigensian crusade and then the reformation wars.

Other religions like Hinduism for example doesn’t seem to have suffered from such violent sectarianism.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Practical Christianity is Nietzschean.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a monotheist thing, you wouldn't get it.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why does a israeli psyop lead to violence between gentiles
    It's a mystery

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Gnosticism is proto-israelitery, the cathars either killed themselves or were killed by the state, not the church, and the 30 Years War was a combination of historical trends making everybody look for excuses to kill eachother.
      Also, hindus still waged war against one another, it's just that the formerly aryan brahmins made it so they are above such conflicts.

      Go choke on a baby's dick Moshe.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >n-no you're j-israeli
        christisraelites are pathetic
        keep worshiping yahweh and le magic rabbi you fricking homosexual

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Other religions like Hinduism for example doesn’t seem to have suffered from such violent sectarianism.
    You're joking, right?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      LARPers on here are consantly talking about how Abhramism is mote virile and manly than weak effiminate Paganism by virtue of Abrahamoids constantly butchering eachother over minor disagreements whereas gentile religions only get upset about grievous disputes.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        And then they call it a slave morality for the weak, while also crying and moaning about how mean, powerful, and intolerant Christians were. Pretty interesting positions to hold…

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          christianity in power is always breathtakingly petty, spiteful, and homosexual

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Waaa my “vitalistic” LARP religion got btfo by stronger people
            You sound very spiteful and full of resentement

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you construct imaginary people often?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Waaa my “vitalistic” LARP religion got btfo by stronger people
          You sound very spiteful and full of resentement

          This would have more impact if you weren't in another thread crying about how atheist trannies killed christianity tbh

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No you

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, you are not immune to having your hypocrisy pointed out.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The difference is that Pagan-larpers claim that might makes right and that their opponents are slave-moralists while they b***h about how mean the Christians were

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is a certain kind of neo-pagan for whom his religion is entirely driven by ressentiment, which manifests itself as something closer to a Christian heresy than an expression of paganism. "Might makes right"—that is a slave's view of how power works, even if he overcomes the master he remains a slave in his thinking. There is a physical fact to power it is true, but it is about capacity to act and not the mere application of brute force to settle questions of what is valued. As is obvious, slaves can wield force! But when our neopagan proverbially kicks an obviously enfeebled Christianity even when it is down, and chastises it for not being kind to historical pagans despite appearing to preach kindness, there is a problem— Christianity was not felled by his hand, nor even by his mind. He lives to resent it. In attacking Christianity for not living up to Christianity there is a concession made— that he isn't capable, but Christianity was. Christianity is not evil for having had its triumph, but from a Nietzschean perspective it was a bad development in European morality, one our neopagan is still grappling with.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There's no thirty years' poo between vashnaivists and shaivists for instance, and the bloodiest conflicts involving Hindus seem to be, wait for it, against our friendly abrahamists, who also introduced the concept of holy war, in the sense of conquering jihad, to dharmists, including Buddhists, e.g. in the Kalachakra Tantra, which prophecizes a final war with Islam, which tells you how traumatic the contemporary war(s) were

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Hysteria

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >to the Albigensian crusade and then the reformation wars
    Were these actually bloody wars or bloody by Christendom's standards? The reason why is because if a religion is true then you care about its Orthodoxy - emperors would convene Councils to combat heresies for this purpose not because of power. Read Emperor Justinian's anathemas against Origen; he genuinely cared about Christianity.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Calling intra-Christian wars religious violence is the same as calling the Punic wars and intra-pagan conflict. They obviously had political motivations and weren’t just moronic zealots

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The opposite is likely true. Some people faked being Christian for power but the driving ethic of how to express love and charity is living and intense conversation. This idea that all rulers just faked it for the poor is totally wrong - rulers are foolish men like us and though assuredly many were faking it most were likely not at all.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Source? Or is it your ass. Do you really think something like the Thirty Years War was motivated primarily by religion?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Can you provide a source? Keep your vulgar materialism for events after the French Revolution.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So I guess it was your ass

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            None of us can provide a source because both of us claim we know what these people actually believed. It's on you to prove what they claimed was a cover for other political goals.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Given that religion was so tightly intertwined with political power, I am not sure that it is an either or question.
        That is even conceptualizing a division between political (ingenuine/self interested) motives v.s religious is a product of secularism

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Exactly. Calling any conflict a “holy war” is such an incomplete way to look at history. Its like reading a George Bush speech and then claiming the Iraq war was an ideological war for democracy. It is convenient when you want to b***h about how intolerant Christians are though…

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Using "you have a false God/religion/theology" as a casus belli is an innovation of mosaic religion, using this pretext insincerely is perhaps even more monstrous than being sincere

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it isn’t. The Romans made a ton of propaganda about Carthage and their religion during the Punic wars. Was that an evil holy war, or a based pagan conquest?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            no doubt the Romans were xenophobic toward the Carthaginians but were they to fought specifically for failing to honor Jupiter?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Freud
            >pre-fedora
            He was the o.g fedora. Like him as a writer but it's true

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dogmatic motivations are political motivations. There is no political difference between a Catholic and Huguenot war and a Northerner and Southerner war.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    They needed control of the narrative. You're not supposed to know that the Gnostics were right.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *