This series was too lenient on the church.
They did burn innocent people alive and spread lies to solidify power, this is historical fact.
They also did way worse things, and it was pretty good of Ellis to actually make them out to be not-all-bad at some points.
This is gonna be a GREAT thread.
I can feel it.
reminder
Demons are bad.
Making demons bad all the time is boring
Church's are bad, making church's always bad is boring.
Villain is bad, making villain always bad is boring.
I swear to god it's basic shit like this that remind me that you fucktards are all a bunch of autists. Most of us just see a clever bit of writing and go : " Oh, the director made a smart choice keeping these charicters alive inside there molds"
But you? You need to point out the outlier in the pattern soooo bad.
Fuck you. Get cancer.
Did Crybabyville just get access to this series? Why are there so many threads at once whining about Castlevania?
Sup Forums really is full of whiney bitches. I love it.
Take it to one of the other threads or make a fucking general (and hopefully get swiftly banned for it).
>fedora meme
Anyone who gets butthurt over fedora/trilby jokes... Probably wears one in real life.
They still got buttblasted.
There are like four at once. I feel like it's some weird type of concern trolling.
First world countries that are still majority religious (organized religion)
>America
>Italy*
>Spain*
>Mexico*
*not really first world countries
Oh, son, you'd better not get me started. I can turn this thread into a burning wasteland. All in the name of God, of course.
There was too little Castle in this Castlevania show
>America
>First world country
Cute spider user
>mexico
Nobody considers Mexico even close to being a first world country
>become a vampire to fight God
>he barely notices and just sends the scions of the friend you betrayed and your own son to whip you when you get too uppity
Vlad is sad
How about you stop being a flaming faggot and being part of cultural propaganda made up by vatican shitposters to silence anyone who doesnt follow church doctrine(t.a deist ie: i still believe in a god)
>They did burn innocent people alive
If you investigate for half a second you'll learn that:
a) The catholic church said witchcraft was bullshit and witch hunters were heretics.
b) It was civic tribunals that burned most people alive and witchcraft/heresy wasn't even the most common crime that got you burned at a stake, forgery, arson (irony at it's finest) and faggotry were the most common.
People in the 13th-16th centuries just didn't like digging graves apparently.
Yes, the Spanish Inquisition did burn people alive, but it was in advancement of secular power by the crowns of Aragon and Castille who used the Inquisition to not only target the wealthy conversos of the Reconquista territories (thus removing them and installing their own supporters)but also to take controlof the Church from the Papacy, with which the Spanish Crown was in conflict over temporal matters and influence in Italy.
Also, they were very reforming in many ways, especially in regards to rural priests. They were also a big opponent of witch trials, decrying even the belief in witches and such as superstition.
Burning as a punishment was either secular (see forgery, arson) or it was to punish Heretics. Witches typically weren't burnt, but hung.
>The catholic church said witchcraft was bullshit and witch hunters were heretics.
I call bullshit you drolling faggot
Except that's completely true. During the renaissance, which is where the height of witch trials occured, there was a big push against witchcraft punishment in Catholic regions, most notably, as stated in areas controlled by Spain.
The largest event of witchcraft investigation during this time period, the Basque Witch Trials ended with no one being executed, the investigation being called off and those investigating being heavily criticised by episcopal authorities for supporting superstition and nonsense. The scale of the trials and such actually led to the effective end of witchcraft persecution and capital punishment in Spain (which was never supported really by the Inquisition except when it would be for secular reasons, ie to suppress a riot or uprising because of the angry population demanding punishment).
Similar events occurred over Catholic Europe during this time period. It's actually a fascinating theological and sociological phenomenon that's linked heavily to the lack of central authority in regards to theological thought and a disconnection in society from what many perceive as their protection against harmful magic and such by the dissolution of the Catholic church in protestant territories.
>The real question is: are we to believe that witchcraft occurred in a given situation simply because of what the witches claim? No: it is clear that the witches are not to be believed, and the judges should not pass sentence on anyone unless the case can be proven with external and objective evidence sufficient to convince everyone who hears it. And who can accept the following: that a person can frequently fly through the air and travel a hundred leagues in an hour; that a woman can get through a space not big enough for a fly; that a person can make himself invisible; that he can be in a river or the open sea and not get wet; or that he can be in bed at the sabbath at the same time;... and that a witch can turn herself into any shape she fancies, be it housefly or raven? Indeed, these claims go beyond all human reason and may even pass the limits permitted by the Devil.
They still endorsed it before. Showing me proof that they put an end to witch trials, doesnt excuse previous behavior
Kamen's 'The Spanish Inquisition' has a lot of the source material listed. I'm away from my library at the moment so I can't quote chapter and verse at you. Also check out Henningsen's 'The Witches' Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the Spanish Inquisition: 1609-1614' and Levack's 'The Witch-hunt in Early Modern Europe' for a more in depth look at witch hunts in general and how they developed and came to an end. Thomas 'Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England ' is also a good view to see what was happening outside of Catholic countries.
No they didn't you fedora wearing butt pirate shlomo.
Also just some undergrad notes I found on this machine that may be interesting.
Yes they did you cross sucking idiotic bible thumping retard. Stop using strawmen and use an actual fucking argument next time you softbrained mongoloid.
Except you're not engaging with them at all. You're still believing pop culture ideas dating back to Anglo-Victorian popular historiography and have not been taken serious by early modern historians for decades now. This is what a 16/17 year old doing A-Level history (if they do an early modern module that covers either the reformation or the Hapsburgs) is taught. Such basic mistakes show you don't know much about what you're discussing.
It's like claiming that the Christians caused the Dark Ages, when the Dark Ages are a complete misnomer and haven't been used in historiography since the 1950s, completely ignorning the advances and development in thought and technology that occured and ignoring the impact of economic decline and fracturing of socio-political systems that allowed large amounts of capital to be accumulated and concentrated.
Its a known fact that the catholic chirch for a long time before the renaissance looked down upon and even forbade numerous scientific advancements, and local churchs burned people for being witches. Now if your saying that the higher ups at the vaticain never did that, thats one thing because they were too busy with day to day subjects, but if your saying that local churchs never did any witch burnings then your a fucking idiot
I think Ellis fucked him up later on when he tried to make Speakers scapegoats and his actual goal is to become highest authority of ruined church. It's just bad, I think third and fourth episodes would've been better without him grinning like motherfucker all the time.
>looked down upon and even forbade numerous scientific advancements
The only one that;s arguable is heliocentrism, and even that's arguable due to the tools of the day being unable to prove heliocentrism beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Your souces? Because the Catholic Church actually funded a huge amount of research and were closely connected to the rise of scholasticism in the 11th century which led the way towards early scientific endeavour. There's a massive amount of scholars whom we would call scientists who were devout Christians and many who were monks, priests and so on. One of the reasons why Galileo was studying astronomy in the first place was due to the Church supporting him and his heresy trial was not concerned about what he was saying but more that he was going against Papal Authority at a time of political stress within the Papal States. In fact, there's a growing theory within early medieval historiography that the Renaissance might even have slowed down intellectual development because it brought back Classical ideals and held up the Ancient masters, dismissing areas of medieval thought that had moved closer to our current understanding. It would be interesting to read a modern historian who supports your point of view.
Meanwhile ecclesiastical authorities rarely actually were involved in witch trials. It was mostly secular authorities who were concerned about keeping stability within their communities. Inquisitions were mostly concerned about heresy, theological matters and so on, not about witchcraft. Local clergy were often more involved, but this was usually against the theological and ecclesiastical orders of episcopal authorities, and untrained rural priests doing things they're not supposed to have been a long running concern of Clerical authorities throughout history. You're also ignoring the role of local churches as community hubs and centres; their involvement was far more due to their connection to the community than religious reasons; witchcraft and such has little theological justification for people to believe in it. In addition, you focus on Christianity, but similar witch persecution is a global phenomenon throughout history. It's sociological.
Nigger, the catholic church was pretty much the vessel of greek knowledge. They were the proponents of spherical earth, heliocentrism, evolution, etc.
You may need to believe in fiction to sustain your anti-catholic fantasy. Reality shows the catholic church to have been pretty much benign compared to the Roman Orthodoxy, Islam or Henry VIII's cult of personality, so long as the pope wasn't Benedict IX, Clement VII, John XV, Innocent IV or Rodrigo fucking Borgia.
I know they forbade the use of the printing press for a while. And why does this upset you so much? Im not saying theirs not a god nor am i even denouncing him. I just think the catholic church is corrupt. Alot less so now, and hell even the current pope seems to be somewhat of a nice guy
en.m.wikipedia.org
So basically around the time of the Italian Wars, the Renaissance, etc, which was when a lot of this shit went down, as pointed out.
One of the biggest problems I see we have in historical education is how people are taught. Nothing is taught in context. You mention Henry VIII, for example and everyone knows about his wives, but hardly anyone knows about why he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon; the issue of... issue was important, but not the main concern. Rather, it was that Charles V, King of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor and currently fighting the Valois was Henry VIII's ally and Catherine was his cousin. Henry VIII wanted to switch sides in the conflict and support the Valois. Charles V also at this time had humilated and captured Clement VII ('accidentally') who refused to annul the marriage. This led to the schism.
It upsets me because while I'm an atheist, you're continuing to promote outdated pop culture as solid history rather than do a little bit of research and try to understand the context and realities of historical life and how modern historiography has dug into it. You're basically committing the sin you accuse the Catholic Church of committing. It smacks of laziness, idiocy and hypocrisy.
Speakers were essentially fantasy hybrid jew-Gypsies. In the context of the show it doesn't make sense to have such an inexplicably Mary Sue religious sect in a world where everyone was flawed. Do the corrupt Christians, stupid peasants or hedonistic noble gentile families have any reason to hate the speakers besides "hurr durr you have a different religion? No. In real life the interactions between groups of people is always more complex and nuanced than that.
>You've found a way to feel superior to both
What, like it's hard?
>vatican shitposters
L M F A O
M
F
A
O
>And why does this upset you so much?
Historical inaccuracy. It has nothing to do with god and all to do with (social) science.
>I was wrong about the witch trials but here's some other thing I find objectionable.
Yawn. Castlevania should show the Catholic Church having less witch burnings and more edicts about the printing press if that's your gripe.
This. There's a hilarious underpinning of episcopal edicts across Europe throughout the period and before which pretty much is bishops going 'STOP BURNING WITCHES, REEEEEEEEEEEEE!'
Amusing how people focus on bitching about the historical context and how it's bad to portray the church in negative light while ignoring the fact the show presents the Archbishop to be the sole party in the wrong from the Church's side, due to his deluded fanaticism. He was the authority figure in the burning so of course everyone obeyed him. And then there's the context that this is a world where black magic, demons and divine blessings exist and have actual physical manifestations, so burning people for withcraft actually has fucking merit and cause!
Of course burning Dracula's wife in this specific instance was wrong since it was fueled by the combination of the Archbishop's asshole douchebaggery, anti-science zealousness and twisted interpretation of the Judeo-Christian dogma rather than her being a genuine demonic threat plaguing the populace.
Did the people have a reason to persecute all the Jews in the middle ages and exile them repeatedly?
Is this it? Is this the famed r/atheism I've heard about? Oh boy I can't wait to see what it does!
It's mostly that we're tired of the meme. It's creatively bankrupt.
If we were even more anal about historical realism, the balkans at this time were under the HRE/Orthodoxy not Vatican/Catholicism.
I didn't like it simply because the writing was pretty bad and extremely cliche
Yes; Jewish populations were often small, heavily involved in finance and commerce and often lived seperately, sometimes through choice, but mostly due to law. They were good sources of concentrated capital for rulers, quite easy sociologically to be accused for crimes and such especially during high stress periods such as the Black Death and often rulers would expel
Sometimes there was a more political aspect to it, Jewish families could sometimes become key advisors, or attain positions of power and authority; to remove rivals or control power in towns or regions, whipping u
But the same things occurred to pretty much anyone if they got on the wrong side of society and secular authority. Look at the Cathars in France, the Huguenots in... er France, the Catholics in post-Reformation England, the Conversos in Spain, the Orthodox communities in the Ottoman Empire, the Buddhists and Christians in Japan, the CLUSTERFUCK that was pre-modern India. Even in the 20th century look at what secular societies have done to religious minorities within them in the former-USSR, China, Cambodia, etc.
Religion, identity and allegiance go hand in hand and often were statements of political or societal beliefs and while much of what was done was cloaked in religious aspects, as to be expected from societies to which their concerns were perceived to be as real as the air they breathed and the earth they walked on, sociological, economic and political factors underpinned them, of which Religion was part and parcel.
Then perhaps it would be a better use of your time to focus on shows and movies that actually do it lazily and hamfisted. Because right now you just come off as an obnoxious nitpicker triggered as a motherfucker over basically nothing.
But it's so dull. It'd be more interesting to have the Bishop be made to publicly go along with it, but secretly be supporting the Belmonts and concerned that this is going to piss the shit out of big D while a secular leader takes on the authority of God and becomes a big Witchfinder General to solidify his own position. Have priests and such support him, especially the lower orders which puts the Bishop in risk of being chucked out if he goes against it by his own people.
Boom. More complex, more sophisticated, and not the same old tired Church=Evil stuff we see time and time again.
Yeah, have him use the threat of the supernatural shit going on around him to purge the area of his non-supporters, etc.
Militant jews literally think non-jews are not human and act accordingly.
Fundamentalists are an issue in any faith.
It's super annoying to try and deal with Christian fundamentalists because this shit was already argued and sorted out over the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries. It's literally the first major thing that happened in Christian theology post establishment; a massive discussion of what the hell it is you're going to take seriously and how far to take it seriously. The arguments still stand up to this day against fundamentalism.
You're pointing towards some Scottish dissenter super protestants (not catholics) who ended up starting the English Civil War because they didn't want to use an Anglican prayer book and was undertaken because the Scottish Crown wanted someone to blame and an almost unique example of it occuring en masse with support from a Catholic bishop who was also the secular authority of the area which he controlled. The Bishop-Electors of Trier were the secular and temporal rulers of the city, which is one of the reasons why von Schönenberg actually conducted the trials.
He was also known at the time by his peers for being overzealous and extreme. In addition, this is in the 1590s, a period of intense political and sociological stress in Germany, which was prompting massive reactions all over the place.
huh wha? the truly devoted would never forego their morals. not too long ago missionaries were tortured in korea but kept going anyways
19th and 20th century Evangelical missionaries draw from a different theological background than early modern bishops. Conflating the beliefs, attitudes and so on of different time periods and different people and sects/theological strains really doesn't work. Also you're ignoring the fact that different people respond in different ways to crisis and threats. Not every bishop will do a Sir Thomas More.
You've got a very crystallised view on Christianity and clergymen in general.
>The Bishop-Electors of Trier were the secular and temporal rulers of the city, which is one of the reasons why von Schönenberg actually conducted the trials.
Sure he was
It was one of the most powerful polities within the HRE.
>Tfw the coat of arms of Trier is still used in at least two german federal state coat of arms because it was so huge and powerfull.
>implying the PIDF isn't real
>Defending Papists
>2017
Nah, it's true. The church was like "wtf are you dumb ass niggas doing? There's zero proof that any of these people rode fucking brooms or danced with Satan!" They were pretty strict when it came to such matters.
Witch processes generally were communities killing somebody (or a lot of people) as a scapegoats for societal ills or a convenient excuse to hang all the gipsies and hobos they could get their hands on. The British didn't have as many of them as they removed said people by shipping them off to the colonies.
The communities often collectively owned the jews money. Also the jews often had money, so the heads of state smashed them like a piggy bank whenever they seriously needed cash.
They kept allying themselves with Muslim conquerors to overthrow Christian nations. People just got fed up with them.
Even today the majority of Jews prefer Muslims to Christians.
or drowned depending on the region and depending on the trial used to determine the witch, there were some cased of burning which is what heretics normally received
however in regions that burning did occur decapitation prior to burning was the common practice
I never see people talked about the real fucked up one that happened in Salem where they crushed a woman underneath a heavy rock, imo that is a way worse way to go
>vatican shitposters
I really really like this meme
WHERE IS GRANT?
Friendly reminder that God's agents are evil in Castlevania
He's either coming in season 2, or he's not going to be in the show at all because Ellis can't figure out how to work a pirate into a landlocked setting.
One of my professors described it as 'cracking open a jew'.
Over the course of 2000 years the Catholic Church did some shitty things. They also did great work on other places, like preserving historical accounts and philosophy texts, protecting people from despots (Read about the Spanish Inquisition), and general charitable and humanitarian efforts.
History is complicated. There are no heroes or villains. Just people.
Why was there barely any demon fighting? I thought this was supposed to be Castlevania not Assassin's Creed
People kept burning down their house and the Muslims just charged them with a special tax to live there. Who would you side with. But today Jews are infinitely better than muslims
Goddamn it, you faggots on Sup Forums are literally the only assholes who complain about this shit. Fuck off. We've had about a dozen threads about this exact topic.
We've gotten the same spam on /vr/. It's just some troll trying to start shit.
I'm not entirely convinced a gun can protect you from those mutton chops.
A centrist opinion? Never.
>Only two Castlevania threads up
>One is about how the church was painted in a bad light
> The other is about how it wasn't painted bad enough
There's really no pleasing people these days.
Please buy me and put me to use real First World Boss/new Dad
>propaganda made up by vatican shitposters
Only smart people are neutral.
>t.a deist ie: i still believe in a god
Why?
I mean, I only just finished episode 2, but they were objectively right. The lady /did/ start fucking Dracula, so they weren't wrong about her being in leagues with the devil. You act like Dracula wasn't several times worse.
Those idiots didn't even know she was married, they just freaked out over her lab equipment.
>jews dindu nuffin
Jews opened the gates of Toledo and actively encouraged the Muslim invasion of Spain.
I hate how a lot of my friends 'sympathize' with Dracula due to the opening. He is still and will always be a fucking monster.
>Amusing how people focus on bitching about the historical context and how it's bad to portray the church in negative light while ignoring the fact the show presents the Archbishop to be the sole party in the wrong from the Church's side, due to his deluded fanaticism.
And every single person under him. There's no counterpoint, nothing to suggest that religion doesn't absolutely corrupt. Everything in the show is just either black or white: Catholic Church (even though it's supposed to be the Eastern Orthodox church) = bad, Belmont and Speakers = good. And then there's a speck of gray with that one who priest who used holy water, but IIRC they didn't even bother giving him any lines.
And Islam is a fake religion used to spread terror. What's new?
>And every single person under him.
Those weren't real priests. Those were just hired goods the Bishop dressed up to do his bidding.
Can we stop with this judeo-christian meme?
>judeo-christian
Nobody ever used this phrase until after the war.
I wonder ((((((why))))))
Which she got from Dracula. They suspected she got it from some hellish source and they were right.
Muslims have acid now
and where do you live, gerministan
Did you just wake up from 2010, or what?
The series is good I'll probably keep watching, if it comes out more, but not to deny, the producers of this show do not really like Christianity, in fact it seems they hate it, I do not see something like that since Hellsing
Today I was at the hospital with my dad and some church faggots came asking to talk about god, dad told them that he believes in god and has faith but he doesn't believe in churches.
>So thanks anyways I appreciate the consideration
They told him that he can't enter into heaven because he lacks faith.
Christcucks are stupid as fuck