Andrew Garfield becomes a cuckold weeb priest abandoning his christian faith

Andrew Garfield becomes a cuckold weeb priest abandoning his christian faith.

Adam Driver dies trying to save prosecuted Japanese christians.

Liam Neeson becomes a weeb priest by the time Andrew finds him.

christianity got rekt in this movie

nice, thanks for the spoilers :(

bu bu Sup Forums said it was a based christianity movie and jews hated it or something

>Understood literally nothing about the film, or Christianity in general

the point of the movie was about making sacrifices to save lives and that jesus doesn't give a shit about pleasing the church

Spoilers, you faggot

Reported

Enjoy your ban

>christianity got rekt
Just like in TLTOC then.

CHRISTIANITY IS THE REASON WHY I DON'T HAVE MY FORESKIN

FUCK RELIGION

Why are all the critics suggesting that the Japanese were justified in their actions? When Christians call for a crusade to expel muslims from Christian lands that's horrifying, but when Japanese buddhists do it to Christians it's fine?

The crusades was a war of retaliation is response to 400 years of muslim aggression. They were at the doors of Europe, dude. Don't get your history lessons from facebook.

That's what I said. It was a war to reclaim the Christian Jarusalem from Muslims, and eventually other lands as well.

the point of the movie was that faith is for retards

literally one of the best films of the year
you know it's a good when Scorsese's passion project gets snubbed by every major awards body

Not quite. The islamic hordes had gotten as far as Constantinople and they took many cities in southern Europe. It was about stopping islam from conquering Europe. It initiatlly had very little to do with reclaiming Jerusalem for Christianity.

The crusades were Europeans invading the middle east on religious grounds.
Silence is about missionaries trying to force religion onto the japanese
It's clearly a vert personal film, and despite what the op says, it's very obviously pro-christian

being an americuck is the reason you don't have your foreskin

>force
wtf are you basing this on

The Crusades were an attempt to stop Islamic expansion in historically-Christian lands. This is morally identical to the Japanese employing similar tactics to stop Christian expansion in historically-Buddhist lands. Why is one acceptable but the other not?

Liberals are Islam loving cucks but the Japanese were justified in their actions. Abrahamic religion is cancer.
>b-but Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization.
No. The Greeks are.

Whatever the exact justification was, it's still morally similar to the Japanese stopping Christian expansion into their lands.

The Christians built off classical history and shaped much of our world today

see: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, William of Ockham etc

Japs are mostly Shinto, not Buddhist.
Portugal didn't invade or conquer Japan so your comparison is very dumb.

One fought back.

So the Crusades were even more justified, given that they were a reaction to Muslim invasion. Still doesn't explain why the Japanese response to replacement is seem as more morally justified than the Christian one.

>The Crusades were an attempt to stop Islamic expansion in historically-Christian lands.
Depends which crusades you're talking about
The most famous and most referenced "bad" was the third crusade in which Europeans attempted to "reclaim" land they believed stolen
In the process, hundreds upon thousands of innocent citizens were murdered

That's why

No one makes that distinction though. They refer to the "Crusades" as a singular event, not a series of events that fall all over the moral spectrum.