1 year ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)2 children
So, centuries ago when the missionaries came around, why did pagan Europeans take to Christianity that like ducks to water and why wasn't that success able to be replicated with the other races?
I hate this disingenuous argument.
Multigenerational stockholm syndrome.
Christianity spread primarily by the tip of the sword, in the hands of the state. The second they got their hands on institutional power, Christians flipped from a "harmless" little pacifist doomsday cult that wanted to exist in peace, to stone cold killers.
It preaches weakness. The European spirit loathes weakness. It's painfully telling to anyone on the outside that "based" Christian Whites have a time/energy split that is 90% explaining why Christian teaching doesn't mean what it says, 5% interdenominational bickering, and 5% espousing the virtues of actual Christian teaching at face value (this particular percentage only kicks up significantly if you are dealing with centrist to left leaning Christians.)
lolcowery aside, Grim has told no lies here. Genetic destiny is *everything.* It's why Whites were still the noblest of all races before Christianity ever came about, and why niggers are still subhuman savages even when there is a cross hanging around one's neck.
This is pure kryptonite to the core thesis of Christianity—that following its teachings imparts a supernatural moralizing effect in the practitioner.
It's externally inconsistent, as it always has been.
Look at Christianity at any point throughout history, and you'll see how it flows like jelly to fit into whatever cultural mold is convenient for its time, place, and circumstances. I already pointed this out with Constantine, which you of course glossed over because you know how it looks.
Internally, Christianity directly contradicts itself on a number of issues, but the pacifistic slant is not one of them. No, I don't think the man who said to love your enemies, rebuked Peter for using the sword to defend him, and told a parable exhorting you to feed, clothe, and house needy foreigners you encounter would condone Christians going around and converting people via violent subjugation.
My point with that contrast, which seemed to just go over your head, is that the European spirit is that of a warrior, and it will continue to act as such by any justification necessary even if you confine it inside of a spineless slave religion.
Christianity was invented by pureblood israelites, who are now extinct.
Paganism was invented by Europeans.
You ask 2 christians the same question, you get 2 different answers. Christianity lacks structure, so it ain't a real religion.
I wish you opinion of me was not so negative, but i suppose there aint nuffin i can do about dat.
Genetics people, genetics.
I wouldn't say they abandoned the pagan gods, rather, they adopted a new one.
Also, you claim that missionarys were unable to convert non whites very well, but that is not entirely true.
95 percent of the Congo believes they are christian. That makes them more christian than most or all white countries.
Go say hello to your nigger friends.
Multigenerational stockholm syndrome.
Christianity spread primarily by the tip of the sword, in the hands of the state. The second they got their hands on institutional power, Christians flipped from a "harmless" little pacifist doomsday cult that wanted to exist in peace, to stone cold killers.
It preaches weakness. The European spirit loathes weakness. It's painfully telling to anyone on the outside that "based" Christian Whites have a time/energy split that is 90% explaining why Christian teaching doesn't mean what it says, 5% interdenominational bickering, and 5% espousing the virtues of actual Christian teaching at face value (this particular percentage only kicks up significantly if you are dealing with centrist to left leaning Christians.)
lolcowery aside, Grim has told no lies here. Genetic destiny is *everything.* It's why Whites were still the noblest of all races before Christianity ever came about, and why niggers are still subhuman savages even when there is a cross hanging around one's neck.
This is pure kryptonite to the core thesis of Christianity—that following its teachings imparts a supernatural moralizing effect in the practitioner.
It doesn't. It never has.
Everything is fixed, and you can't change it.
>It preaches weakness.
Pick a lane, heathen. Is it about conquest, or about being easy to conquer?
Look at Christianity at any point throughout history, and you'll see how it flows like jelly to fit into whatever cultural mold is convenient for its time, place, and circumstances. I already pointed this out with Constantine, which you of course glossed over because you know how it looks.
Internally, Christianity directly contradicts itself on a number of issues, but the pacifistic slant is not one of them. No, I don't think the man who said to love your enemies, rebuked Peter for using the sword to defend him, and told a parable exhorting you to feed, clothe, and house needy foreigners you encounter would condone Christians going around and converting people via violent subjugation.
My point with that contrast, which seemed to just go over your head, is that the European spirit is that of a warrior, and it will continue to act as such by any justification necessary even if you confine it inside of a spineless slave religion.