Forum Debate: Was Christ Weak for Rejecting the Sword?

A controversial forum post claims Christ was effeminate for denying violence, sparking a debate on biblical exegesis and Church history.

English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published

The Cimmerian Returns: «Christ was weak and effeminate» for rejecting the sword

An initial post argues that «there is nothing more beautiful and virile than the sword» and that Christ «was weak and effeminate» for denying it. Launched in an economics forum, this thesis triggered 184 replies over 452 days. The original poster, signing as El Cimmerio Vuelve, posits that steel separates man from uncontrolled emotionality and that forgiveness is the symbol of the weak. The discussion shifted toward biblical exegesis, the history of the Crusades, and the role of the Catholic Church.

Did Christ reject the sword?

The first reply to the original post cites Matthew 10:34: «Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword». The original poster responds that this parable refers to the rupture between truth and falsehood, not the physical sword. He adds that Christ tells Peter to put away his sword when he cuts off the Roman soldier's ear. The discussion becomes entangled in textual interpretation.

Another participant invokes Luke 22:36: «let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one». This quote is used to refute the thesis that Christ rejected violence. The original poster counters with Matthew 5:38-48, where turning the other cheek is commanded. The exchange of verses becomes the axis of much of the thread.

The Church as a negation of Christianity

One line of analysis argues that the Catholic Church is the negation of early Christianity. It is claimed that the «ekklesia» was an assembly, not a professional hierarchy, and that the alliance with Rome turned faith into a power entity. This line appears developed in several posts distinguishing between grassroots Christianity and the later institution.

The original poster responds that the Crusaders were «more pagan than Christian» and that their orders were dissolved for heresy. He maintains that the Church had to syncretize doctrines to invite nobles to fight in Jerusalem. Without such syncretism, he argues, no Christian kingdom would have lasted.

Paganism as the older religion

The initial post asserts that paganism has existed for more than 30,000 years and that Christianity is historically modern. This figure is used to dismantle the argument that durability proves truthfulness. Several participants respond that antiquity does not validate a belief, and that the argument is fallacious.

The discussion drifts toward the Reich and Germanic paganism. It is mentioned that the Nancy regime was populated by pagans who detested the «religion of the weak». This comparison is used to refute the association between paganism and military strength.

Modern Christianity and inclusivity

The original poster closes his argument stating that Christianity has returned to its base and consists of «kissing the feet of blacks and opening borders». This derogatory phrase links Christian doctrine with inclusivity towards gentiles. Several participants respond with biblical quotes about the expulsion of merchants from the temple, describing a Christ who uses a whip.

The discussion diverts toward esoteric Christianity and the figures of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. It raises whether Aslan or Aragorn are representations of Christ. The thread ends without consensus on whether the sword is a symbol of masculinity or cowardice.



Prediction with reservations: if the debate continues at the current pace, biblical exegesis will remain the battlefield. No one has managed to impose their reading. And the figure of 30,000 years of paganism still lacks supporting sources.

Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (184 replies).

More summaries

All summaries in English →

Back