If christianity is a religion of weakness then why christians ended up dominating the world and defeated pagans with...

If christianity is a religion of weakness then why christians ended up dominating the world and defeated pagans with "religions of strength"?

Attached: Fryderyk Niecki.jpg (352x500, 69K)

read The Genealogy of Morals
he explains why

Christianity didn't do that. War strategists, generals, blacksmiths, military officers, and warriors did.

something about the power of the masses
but anyway what people understand is he has just as much contempt for the religions of strength/ master morality which is even more obsolete than Christian morality

And they won despite being christians

Nominal Christians. The reason the Catholic Church sent warriors into pagan lands wasn't because they wanted to turn them to go to heaven but because they wanted to expand their power. It's got nothing to do with actual Christianity which teaches pacifism and self loathing and weakness.

because it was about controlling the weak masses and using them for your own interests as the state/church leader

>It's got nothing to do with actual Christianity which teaches pacifism and self loathing and weakness.
wrong. It's ok to kill in defence of christianity and you should be a morally strong person that can see a difference between good and evil. Christanity promotes the primacy of mind over body and puts greater importance on the afterlife.

Healthy hypocrisy,he talks about it a bit in Twilight

>it's okay to kill in defence of Christianity
Oh yeah I remember that part in the bible. Sandwiched between "turn the other cheek" and "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" was "Kill all infidels btw"

Atheists on suicide watch

Attached: 123312231.jpg (828x1103, 115K)

>what is cleansing of the temple
>what is conquest of the promised land
>what is the entirety of Old Testament
and the other stuff was about non-violent resistance to roman occupation of judea. Greatly influenced by the Jewish law and unsuccessfull rebellions.

>War strategists, generals, blacksmiths, military officers, and warriors did
Most of them were Christians. See Constantine the Great's wars against the pagan, fellow tetrarchs.

Roman law*

"As German and other languages do not distinguish between the private and political enemy, many misconceptions and falsifications are possible. The often quoted “love your enemies” … reads “diligite inimicos vestros” … and not diligite hostes vestros. No mention is made of the political enemy. Never in the thousand-year struggle between Christians and Muslims did it occur to a Christian to surrender rather than defend Europe out of love towards the Saracens or Turks." (Carl Schmitt)

>cleansing of the temple
Is driving out (no deaths occurred btw)"evil doers" the same as killing infidels?
>Old Testament
Do you know what convenental theology is? The Old Testament law dealt with Israel as gods political entity; in the New Testament Christians are no longer a political entity but a diaspora of believers. I'm a non believer and even I know this.
Oh yeah man I trust the translation (from Latin not Greek) of a Nazi layman more than I trust the thousands of scholars who put together all the bible translations from the best manuscripts which all state virtually the same thing.

Read some Scandinavian history. After the end of the classical Viking age, Norse pagans were more than willing to dump their gods if it meant better trading with the English and French.

By not following Christianity.

It's a religion of weakness in the sense that it was formed based on slave morality. Slave morality is the morality of the weak; they form ressentiment toward the masters (those who are strong), and invert what the masters consider good and bad.
Nietzsche does not deny that Christianity is an extremely successful religion; doing so would be silly. Socialism and democracy are other highly successful forms of slave morality (tools of the weak) that he despised. He thinks, because of how slave morality operates, we are doomed to nihilism unless we embrace the ubermensch.

>turn the other cheek

This meme again. In the context of the time period and their customs this didn't mean to literally roll over and be a sniveling coward bitch.

Attached: 1561095810733.png (638x656, 392K)

It promotes individual weakness but strength as a crowd. On top of this, the crowd attacked pagan society while it was already down.

>To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Yeah, seems like Christ wanted you to be a snivelling little bitch. Sorry.

Early Christians were leftist revolutionaries by the way.

>applying the left and right dichotomy to history
You idiots need to stop commiting the historian's fallacy

Attached: 1560118539025.gif (326x192, 41K)

They were leftists but they weren't revolutionaries. Leftist doomsday cult is a more accurate description.