• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How come atheists/SJWs always persist with the lie that Christianity was spread through violence?

Hec.

Member
You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Heh, I'm currently reading The Darkening Age, the Christian Destruction of the Classical World right now.

Like Christianity did spread through violence. A perusal of a History Textbook can tell you that.

Although I'm not particularly inclined to shout it from the rooftops nor go around proclaiming modern Christians as barbarians or anything like that.

History is violent, especially where religion is concerned. To deny history is insulting to those who suffered IMO.
 

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
History is violent, especially where religion is concerned. To deny history is insulting to those who suffered IMO.
Mostly the monotheistic religions though.
What Christians also did in nations they destroyed and occupied was to take the native children away from their parents by force, put them into homes and teach them their language and culture including Christianity.
It was a huge crime.
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.

Wait...you're complaining that people are painting a one dimensional picture of how Christianity spread, but argue against this with...one dimensional descriptions of how Christianity spread?

Is the irony intentional?
 
I'm currently reading The Darkening Age, the Christian Destruction of the Classical World right now.

:grimacing:

That's a dreadful book for understanding the era. While it is well written as a polemic, it is a terrible work of history written by someone who either has little knowledge of the subject matter she is writing about, or absolutely no concern with presenting it accurately.

Oxford Professor Dame Avril Cameron, who called the book a 'travesty':

Hearts will sink among historians of early Christianity and late antiquity, as well as medievalists and, needless to say, Byzantinists, when they see the title of this pugnacious and energetically written book.

The words “darkening age” evoke everything they have been trying for years to overturn, implying as they do the notion of the “dark ages”, when the glories of classical civilisation were supposedly obliterated for centuries, until the Renaissance and the Enlightenment made possible the triumph of Western European liberalism and secularism.

We imagined that we had made some progress in finally overturning the Gibbonian model after a mere two and a quarter centuries. But, no. Catherine Nixey is a lively writer and likely to go far, but unfortunately in her first book she has rather unimaginatively bought into the old “blame the Christians” model. She drives it through with a steely-eyed determination, unrelieved by nuance or counter-argument. Readers would never imagine from her book that any alternative view is possible, or that there is anything unsatisfactory about the linear Western European narrative of darkness to light.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
How come atheists/SJWs always persist with the lie that Christianity was spread through violence?

There's no lie there.

Assuming that you're a Christian, aren't you supposed to be a social justice warrior rather than criticizing them?

If one wants to understand what Christianity actually is, he should consult a non-Christian, who will be impartial and describe what he sees. Christianity is a religion steeped in violence, beginning with Constantine's army, without which support, we would likely never have heard of Christianity as is the case with untold thousands of religions that didn't enjoy state support enforcing it.

But you can't expect any Christian to say that. He must see the spread of Christianity as divine and inevitable.

If you doubt this, ask a Muslim if his religion is violent, then ask a non-Muslim. Who will give you the more impartial assessment?
 
As is generally the case, the real world situation has more nuance to it than can be captured by diatribes in either direction.

Can't have your cake and eat it. Either it was spread by Divine Providence, kind hearts, bunny rabbits and daisys, or it was spread by a conquering horde of barbarians who forced everyone to follow it so they could control the masses and keep them in ignorant darkness. You takes your pick.

Next thing you'll be telling me is that a religion (or religions) that spread over centuries in the pre-modern era, across multiple empires and continents, without central direction from any single source may have spread through a diverse collection of means both bottom-up and top-down. As if... :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.
Manifest destiny - Wikipedia
...the idea that the American Anglo-Saxon race was "separate, innately superior" and "destined to bring good government, commercial prosperity and Christianity to the American continents and the world". This view also held that "inferior races were doomed to subordinate status or extinction." This was used to justify "the enslavement of the blacks and the expulsion and possible extermination of the Indians".
Christianization of Scandinavia - Wikipedia
Olaf I then made it his priority to convert the country to Christianity using all means at his disposal. By destroying temples and torturing and killing pagan resisters he succeeded in making every part of Norway at least nominally Christian.[24] Expanding his efforts to the Norse settlements in the west the kings' sagas credit him with Christianizing the Faroes, Orkney, Shetland, Iceland, and Greenland.
I could go on, but I think the point is made.
Btw, I don't judge modern Christians by the behavior of the worst in history.
IOW, people are who they are, not who someone else once was.
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
There's no lie there.

Assuming that you're a Christian, aren't you supposed to be a social justice warrior rather than criticizing them?

If one wants to understand what Christianity actually is, he should consult a non-Christian, who will be impartial and describe what he sees. Christianity is a religion steeped in violence, beginning with Constantine's army, without which support, we would likely never have heard of Christianity as is the case with untold thousands of religions that didn't enjoy state support enforcing it.

But you can't expect any Christian to say that. He must see the spread of Christianity as divine and inevitable.

If you doubt this, ask a Muslim if his religion is violent, then ask a non-Muslim. Who will give you the more impartial assessment?
I'm a Christian. I'm well aware of the blood spilled in my religion's name. But I find the people who will tie themselves into semantic and philosophical knots to maintain the fiction that Christianity was never spread by violence, while gleefully accusing other religions of being spread exclusively by violence are a far greater threat to my faith than basic acknowledgement of historical fact.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.

There is a multi volumes historical treatise about that, if you are interested.

It is called “the criminal history of Christianity” written by KH Deschner. The original is in German, but I believe there are English translations.

Very illuminating.

Ciao

- viole
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You'll notice it on Twitter in particular in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or if for some reason religion is being discussed in the mainstream, you'll see the atheist sjws come out and they so "Oh well you can't say anything about extremism in Islam because Christianity runs America and Christianity was spread through violence and forced conversions", "and I suppose Christianity has no violent aspect even though it was spread through fear and violence?".

And yet everyone retweets them and gives them thousands of upvotes when it's not really true, in fact it's not true at all that Christians converted people at the point of a sword. When you go into the Nordics, Clovis, nobody forced Clovis to become a Christian. Missionary works created Christian enclaves as far upwards as Britain and Ireland, which paved the way for the Christianization of those countries later on.

Even the Normans converted to Christianity after THEY had already raided the CHRISTIAN Franks.

The way Pagans and "nuatheist" Vikings or whatever you want to call them talk you'd think Christian armies marched into Northern Europe and converted everybody by force and yet nothing like that ever happened. Even when the western Roman Empire collapsed the papacy actually had to rely on the SELF-CONVERTED Northern barbarians for protection against tribes who had either not converted or were into heretic versions like Arianism and all this stuff.

The only time anything resembling a forced conversion happened was when Charlemagne forced the Saxons to become Christian, but there's a whole other story to why that actually happened which was mainly Charlemagne needing to "pacify" the Saxons because they kept plundering Frankish provinces and burning out their villages and churches. They were also threatening an alliance with the Vikings which would have overthrown the whole Frankish empire. What was Charlemagne supposed to do? Just watch the destruction of his own empire? He had to pacify them. And this was after the Saxons had broken his treaty over and over by the way. Really Charlemagne had shown so much patience to the Saxons more so than any other monarch from back then would've given them.

The "nu-atheists" who wear shirts with Vikings and Odin on the front of them and hold placards saying "This is what a male Feminist" looks like and all the rest of it. These guys are simply wrong when they passively suggest that Christianity grew from brutality and forced conversions and they don't expect to be pulled up on it. Because when you go into it, you see that the nordics abandoned their traditions and went to Christianity on their own violation. By the way, that tells you a lot of the state of those pagan religions *back then*. Imagine trying to resurrect something that was already corrupt back then after a thousand years of living under another religion.

Looks like you missed the general advice,
"Dont start something you cannot stop!" :D
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Any "Christianity" that has been spread by violence, such as the crusades, colonialism, inquisitions, etc. was the spread of religious/political power and control, but not Christianity at all. If Christianity is about Jesus Christ then these examples of atrocities and violence are solely the work of humans misusing, even blaspheming the name of Christ, as Jesus or even His apostles never spread the gospel in forceful, violent ways.
 

Woberts

The Perfumed Seneschal
Any "Christianity" that has been spread by violence, such as the crusades, colonialism, inquisitions, etc. was the spread of religious/political power and control, but not Christianity at all. If Christianity is about Jesus Christ then these examples of atrocities and violence are solely the work of humans misusing, even blaspheming the name of Christ, as Jesus or even His apostles never spread the gospel in forceful, violent ways.
Whether Jesus did it or not isn't relevant, the fact is that Christianity was spread by violent and/or coercive methods, and it still is.
 
Top