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.
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.
