Why do people push the "Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages!" meme

>le Christianity caused the fall of Rome meme
>Not the multicultural stance the empire had since day fucking one which obliterated it from the inside
Last I checked the fall of Rome happened because of pissed off barbarians that lived inside Rome's borders but that's just me.

gibbon pls go, you're drunk

Mostly german shill

WE DINDU NUFFIN, WE DINDU ZACK ROMZ IT WAS THE EBIL CHRISTIANZ
THE ROMANZ FORCED TO INVADE THEM WE WERE PEACEFUL DINDUS

It's a dying meme

Many more people are aware of the revisionism and bias of Renaissance & Enlightenment era snobs

>Rome becomes Christian
>suddenly, dark ages
Gee, I dunno

>it was multiculti and rassenschande
>it was Christianity
>it was wealth inequality
>it was socialism
>it was Germanic scum
>it was homosexuality and degeneracy
>it was climate change
>it was militarism
>it was pacifism
>it was the Jews
>it was ayy lmaos

Gotta love how every faggot has his own special snowflake explanation for why Rome fell, usually completely in line with his general ideology

Their one reason is always 'The Reason' for Rome's decline (and usually retarded on top of it)

Yeah, it's pretty much guaranteed that if someone is trying to attribute the fall of Rome to one thing, they're trying to push a narrative.

>China becomes Buddhist
>suddenly warring states

When dumbass Christcucks like you stop pushing the "Medieval Era was actually totally an era of peace and prosperity, setting people on fire was actually the height of progress" meme

same reason people during the Renaissance pushed the idea of the Dark Ages to begin with: To brag about how cool they are compared to the past.

you got it backwards fampai

>Roman civilization starts to crumble
>people turn to a faith that promises hope and eternal life

>Russia becomes atheist
>suddenly, gulags

>it's an amateur mistaking the early modern period with medieval times episode

hurrrrr because real life is so simple and only one thing can be 100%

>there was no sand niggers in Europe and no terorist attacks, the society was violent, but the people were safe unlike now.

>it's a "the Spanish Inquisition was how every Christian everywhere and in every time period acted" episode

That's a retarded hyperbole as expected from a fedoralord, nobody is saying the Middle Ages were peaceful. As a matter of fact Europe was never really peaceful until after WW2 and even then we have some outliers like Yugoslav wars.

This. How come people who shit talk the medieval period always bring up things like witch hunts and mass burnings when a vast majority of that happened during the renaissance and early modern period? The biggest European religious conflict (30 years war) also happened in the 17th century.

>setting people on fire

That's a Renaissance thing, the glorious rebirth of civilisation that you fedoralords love so much.

>who were the Cathars and what happened to them

Same as with people not bathing or rejecting science. Every myth about the Middle Ages is either completely made up or actually applies to the Renaissance.

Albigensian crusade was all things considered rather minor, around 200 Cathar bonhommes were massacred, now contrast this to shit like the Huguenot massacre from 1572 which totalled around 30k dead over a few weeks.

There are too many factors that were a part of the fall of Rome. Saying it's only one thing is too simplistic for the actual subject.

A few thousand heretics who got killed for heresy.

If they hadn't their cult would have degenerated into something of the magnitude of Protestantism and would most likely have caused millions of deaths, like Protestantism did.

>Cathocucks actually believe thi

I bet you believe that priestpedophilia induced suicides prevented a few people from becoming brutal dictators as well

Daily reminder that Cuckstianity is responsible for 40 million deaths in China.

This entire thread should be taken back to /pol/ as it was purposely provocative in the OP.
Mayeb the OP should't have been a stupid faggot and said "Why do people have the perception that Christianity was responsible for the subversion of scientific progress?"

Cathars were heretics you dumb shit. If you want to see what happens when heresy goes unchecked, look at the countless religious wars, witch burnings, and persecutions that ravaged Europe following the Reformation.

Also this whole thing was political in the first place, it was just the count of Toulouse revolting against royal power and getting rekt by the king of France, religion was only a pretext.

You sound like a 'moderate' muslim

>a mentally ill guy starts a war because he believes he is Jesus' brother
>implying this is in any way in correlation with Christian theology

I see nothing wrong with the way he worded it, however I think it's pretty idiotic to assume every Christian is alt-right or from /pol/ or thinking personal attacks like that constitute an argument.

This is true. The reason why anyone whining about Christians being multicultural is wrong is that Christianity unifies cultures and supplants the divisive elements with a common notion of brotherhood. It holds only what is good and obliterates what isn't.

>Horrible crimes committed because of Christianity isn't Christianity's fault because theology

That makes no sense.

>I think it's pretty idiotic to assume every Christian is alt-right or from /pol/

I don't. I think it's safe to say that 90% of all the "Christians" on here are "Christian" because of /pol/

Anyone can claim to be "Christian" and do whatever they want. That's why heretics aren't real Christians, only Catholics are.

Because for most of history religious authorities had reacted rather brutally to deviation from the views of [insert religion here].
The problem is people see these examples, but don't balance it with examples of [insert religion here] that show a progressive stance on scientific thought.

People see what they want to see, but that doesn't make the opposite any more true.

>Also this whole thing was political in the first place
>religion was only a pretext.

I hear these two hollow phrases every time some Hajji blows himself to bits.

The guy was fucked in the head and delusional from the get go, started reading Christian literature and thought it provided an explanation for his delusions.

>safe to say

Source: your anus.

>Multiculturalism destroyed Rome

I don't even know how to address such stupidity.

Except Catholics didn't blow themselves to bits, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Killing traitors to the crown was completely justified.

What killed Rome was letting a bunch of barbarian tribes settle inside Roman territory, that's pretty fucking obvious.

>ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!???

Papist scum
Kill yourself

Yes and no. The barbarians would never be able to destroy Rome if the empire wasn't already extremely weakened by wars with the Huns and the Eastern realms. I mean technically Rome at its height was no less multicultural than at its downfall.

Please demonstrate how that was what killed Rome if it's so fucking obvious.

It shouldn't be called the barbarian invasions but the barbarian immigrations since most were let in willingly.

>Cathars were heretics you dumb shit.

So, what you're saying is that disagreeing with the church is grounds for being murdered?

>please demonstrate how Rome letting barbarian tribes occupy its land led to Rome becoming occupied by barbarian tribes

The reason they let barbarians settle in Rome in the first place was because they were weakened.

The fall of Rome goes back to the Crisis of the Third Century, and the seeds of that are in the very structure of the Roman Empire, politically highly unstable and dependent on constant expansion.

On theological matters yes of course. It's a matter of maintaining unity and peace, and preventing rabid cults from plunging the continent into chaos.

> If you want to see what happens when heresy goes unchecked, look at the countless religious wars, witch burnings, and persecutions that ravaged Europe following the Reformation.

Not an argument

Why do people push the "Christianity is responsible for saving knowledge!" meme when this is objectively wrong?

Yeah OK, and the greatest era of peace and prosperity has only come about since the Church's spine was broken by the combined efforts of John Wycliffe, Jan Huss, and Martin Luther.

>I'm retarded

okay.

>countless religious wars, witch burnings, and persecutions that ravaged Europe following the Reformation
>greatest era of peace and prosperity

How delusional can you get?

lmao get back to burning witches and not bathing.

Rome always had barbarians in their land though
>what is transalpine gaul

It's not wrong though

I'm a reformed Protestant but dude you're full of shit, reformation basically paved the way to the biggest religious wars in European history, unsurpassed in their scale and intensity until the WW1.

It's pretty much correct actually. The Roman state factually ceased to exist and it was the Church who scrambled to preserve as much literature as possible. You could criticize the fact that knowledge was more or less contained to monasteries, but that was pretty much the norm before printing press was invented.

Kill yourself papist swine

>it was the Church who scrambled to preserve as much literature that agreed with their doctrines as possible

fify

Yeah especially things like Plato and Aristotle, famous Christians.

Except it fucking wasn't.

Rome had barbarians living in their lands long before their fall and they were doomed long before tribes started migrating south into their lands.

The migrations and their complete mismanagement of them made a bad situation worse but it wasnt the cause. Actually, not accepting some of the barbarians was an even greater problem, as was the case with the massacre of the Goths and Alaric's rebellion.

If Alaric has actually been accepted and his people given lands, Rome might not have been sacked in 410.

Corruption, civil wars, inflation, religious strife, and inept leadership were factors in the fall of the western roman empire. "Multiculturalism" wasnt. Stop getting your information off of /pol/

I'm pretty racist but I have to agree with you, Rome was "multikulti" ever since it became an empire and it was never really a problem until very late. Even in Jesus' times there was a lot of migration from every corner of the empire into Italia, from Egyptians through diasporic Jews and various barbarians, Romans themselves were already converting to all kinds of foreign kooky syncretic religions, later there were Arabic, Illyrian or Syrian emperors, etc.

/pol/

nice argument faggot

Because Constantine created the Veeky Forums dark ages.

No, it only had conquered barbarians that got romanised.

Did you learn a new word?

>If Alaric has actually been accepted and his people given lands
lmao

You're seriously saying Rome fell because it didn't give enough of its land away to barbarians.

It didn't give lands to one group who was actually fighting for it already.

Alaric wanted recognition from the emperor and land on the border provinces for his people and an official rank in the roman army offering to act as a buffer zone between the Roman heartlands and the huns . Alaric was a mega roma-boo and had his men call him Alaricus in Latin style.

Actually establishing him and his Goths as a buffer would've been a plus. Instead Honorius was retarded and spurned the deal.

Barbarians taking lands from the Romans wasnt the problem but rather a symptom of deeper problems.

Rome fell because it was a parasitic city, and after the division of the Empire, it was left with the Western half, the shitty half.

Rome couldnt protect the western fronteers without the resources of the East.

Really, this. There were book burnings, there was brutal oppression, there were sectional wars that killed hundreds of thousands; but there was monastic culture, the spread of ideas through pilgrims, and a sense of structure and community.

This shit is nuanced, though as with anything, ruined by politics.

Because christianity is groupthink-and when it was ascendant, western europe was mudhuts and open sewers

Rome don't have multiculturalism, what they did is they Romanized everyone they conquered.
>conquered Greece, you're Roman now
>conquered Gaul, you know what? you Gallic tribes are Roman now
So on and on

Can you name a single example of the Catholic Church "brutally oppressing" science?

>there were sectional wars that killed hundreds of thousands
Yeah, during the Renaissance, thanks to the Reformation.

And then they stopped for the barbarians they allowed to live within the empire.

Is that square commieblock supposed to be impressive?

>shitting on Roman architecture while posting something at least partly inspired by it
>shitting on Roman architecture at all

How is Gothic architecture inspired by Roman architecture? Because it has columns? lmao

>Roman architecture
No such thing. Classical architecture is Greek. And it's pretty shit and uninspired compared to what Christians achieved during the "Dark Ages".

Not true, actually Christianity gave a boost to keep going the Empire.
Dont believe me? Check ERE and how long lasted til 1453.
Not at all. As long as I hate that invasion of the northern people they actually mimetized well and some served very well to Rome.
Corruption and the Huns were more gamechanging, way more.

Not like it evolved from Romanesque architecture. Oh wait.
Romans put their own spin on Greek architecture.
Also, Gothic architecture is no more 'inspired' than classical architecture.

>they actually mimetized well and some served very well to Rome.
That's short term thinking vs long term thinking.

Short term it may seem like a good idea because you have all those barbarians fighting for you. But long term the result is your empire is occupied by self-ruling barbarian tribes, meaning it effectively ceases to exist.

Daily reminder that Karl Marx is personally responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide.

Lots of barbarians were willing to live by the Roman lifestyle. The last good generals on Rome, in V AD were most of all from germanic origin.

Show me one thing that this has in common with this >Gothic architecture is no more 'inspired' than classical architecture

>Gothic architecture
>huge high vaults that stretch into the heavens, pointed arches, flying buttresses, stained glass flooding the inside with multicoloured light, all of that richly ornamented with statues and motives, each of those things a miracle of engineering and all working together to create an impression of weightlessness, infinite space and light

>Greco-Roman architecture
>lets just make a square with identical columns and then stack a square floor on top of them, Minecraft tier

Your fedora brainwashing is showing.

Those were assimilated. That's not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is allowing pagan or Arian barbarians who keep living as barbarians to control large swaths of your land. And the last Roman generals like Aetius spend most of their time fighting those

Nigga, tribes like the wisigoths were crucial to defeat the fucking Huns at Chalon. Lots of tribes, before even joining as foederati were living a similar roman lifestyle.
Again, Im not defending them, Im just telling you less or more how really happened the facts.