Is Theodosius the worst Roman Emperor?

Νο, Constantine is
>That's a nice civilization you've got there Rome, it would be a shame if I enabled a religion that represents everything opposite to it

The Roman empire was partitioned like twenty times, you pleb.

Theodosius did nothing wrong.

>Byzantine Emperor
>Roman Emperor
Justinian was the last Latin emperor.

>The ERE wasn't Roman
>t. G*rman revisionist historians

Franks>West Francia>France
Germany>East/West Germany>Germany
Kingdom of Viet Nam>French Indochina>North/South Vietnam>Vietnam
USA>USA/CSA>USA
The entire history of China

No the ERE was definitely Roman. Until it wasn't anymore. The last Latin emperor was Justinian, after that they're mostly just Greek. That's not really Roman now, is it? That they considered themselves the Roman empire isn't different from how the Turks did as well. Would you call them Romans?

>to start a war that lasted 25 years
So the Sassanids fault then.

Agora. Don't bother, it's historically illiterate gash

That would be true if cultures were static, but they are not. Latin culture had begun to synthesize with Greek centuries before the empire was established. Can you say that a French person today is not French because his culture is too different from French culture 200 years ago?

>brainlet history from Eddy Gibbon
How exactly did Christianity represent everything opposite to Rome when it quickly became the most popular religion among the empire? Christianity had multiple facets that satisfied many of the different peoples of Rome, with a dense and layered dogma that offered intellectuals and theologians an actual base to discuss and conjure thought, (some sources often talk about an intellectual "starving" of later Rome). Christianity also embodies many stoic concepts which was an immensely popular philosophy for centuries among Romans. It offered a new avenue of hegemonic control over a group of people that had consistently fractured and grown apart under a multitude of new religions all competing to take the place of Greco-Roman paganism (which, at this point, was very different from how it was in popular history), it supplanted mystery cults among the military, and appealed to the people in general.

Greco-Roman paganism had been on the decline for so long to insinuate Constantine's endorsement of Christianity was an "enabling" of a religion representing an antitheses to Roman religion is stupid. Interestingly enough when Julian showed up and shilled his view of tradition paganism everyone detested him, even the pagans. Why? Because he was fucking LARPing.

>Christianity had multiple facets that satisfied many of the different peoples of Rome
>aka the slaves
the only reason why christianity made it bog is because it relied on the hatred the poor and downtrodden had for the rich and successful
>don't worry my poor friend, you don't need to work and try to be successful! As a matter of fact, it is now a sin to be rich and successful! Actually, all the rich people will burn in hell for all eternity, and the poor and all the idiots will go to heaven and watch them burn for entertainment!
>actual fucking christian beliefs
christianity is the religion of envy and hatred

I read from some cheap book I picked out from a library give-away that Caracalla's edict was the decisive cultural death of Rome that began the end of everything. The author (whom I can't recall) basically states that prior to the Severans the empire existed as a Greco-Italia centric state with a clear distinction between Roman and non-Roman subjugated person. With the edict of Caracalla, this distinction was shattered and what it actually meant to be a Roman citizen in a sense that wasn't strictly nominal was cast to the wind. If everyone was Roman, nobody was Roman.

No, but I can say that a state ruled by a German, ruling over Germans, using German bureaucracy isn't French. Especially when the territory that is being governed doesn't include the historical heartland of France.

how did giving citizenship to all subjugated peoples mark the beginning of the end? why was it a bad thing?

That may be. But the theory is flawed because it simply isn't true. If everyone was Roman, why did Stilicho and Aetius not rule by their own right, instead of having to rely on Roman emperors?

Fuck you dumb nigger, the old testament is literally The Book on How You and Your Community Can Succeed.

bravo
>Christianity satisfied the slaves
No, stoicism did. For centuries leading up the fall of the WRE the popularity of stoicism had led to an eroding of traditionally bad treatment of slaves. Laws were passed to grant them legal protection and further the fairly unique Roman quality of emancipation. This stoic tradition which was a staple of Roman culture is part of the reason Christianity became popular.
>the only reason why christianity made it bog is because it relied on the hatred the poor and downtrodden had for the rich and successful
What the fuck are you on about? Jesus wasn't some proto-Marx telling the people of the Levant to seize the means of production from the Romans. Historically the church has been an immensely powerful and wealthy thing that, if anything, promotes subservience and dutiful faithfulness to it. Do you think it became this way by telling people to reject the rich and powerful? Do you even know what Christianity is?

>introducing religion that explicitly forbids murder and theft to and empire build on murder on theft is not contradictory

(you)

Because it, in a sense, wiped the slate clean and basically did away with traditional Roman qualities in favor of a blank slate where everyone across the empire contributed their views in an immense, destabilizing clusterfuck. If you subscribe to the idea that what made the Romans so successful was in part due to their culture and values, you could see how one would make an argument that Caracalla's Edict that deemphasized these qualities would cause some issues.
I don't really see an equivalency, there have always existed puppet-kings and regencies dominated behind the scenes by favorites. These two are simply men that didn't go all the way and usurp the throne as other non-Italian Romans such as Thrax did. In fact, Thrax would serve as an immediate counter seeing as how he was born an actual barbarian.

>What the fuck are you on about? Jesus wasn't some proto-Marx telling the people of the Levant to seize the means of production from the Romans. Historically the church has been an immensely powerful and wealthy thing that, if anything, promotes subservience and dutiful faithfulness to it. Do you think it became this way by telling people to reject the rich and powerful? Do you even know what Christianity is?
Of course he wasn't telling the people to revolt against their oppressors, that would mean giving the people ambition for self ownership, freedom, and power, which Christianity is strictly against. He was telling the people the exact opposite.
>don't try to improve your living conditions, don't try to be happy, don't try to be successful, not only does it not matter (guess what we are also the forefathers of nihilism), it is actually a SIN to be ambitious and powerful
>keep being a loser or you'll burn in hell forever :-D

yeah didn't you know after constantine no christian nations ever murdered or stole again

Yes, and before it murder and theft was totally allowed and even encouraged in Rome.

It seems like you've got a personal stake against Christianity. I don't know if you've just discovered r/athiesm or what but you should really work on developing a more cogent argument for your views.

>no argument
>H-HAH, R-REDDIT
give an argument or fuck off back to sucking your pastor's tiny penis

>genocide 1 million gauls and steal all their money
>greeted with a triumph
yeah it was definitely not encouraged

>"y-yes! another successful debate"

>still no argument
this isn't working well for you you know

its a real good thing christianity, seeing as how it represented everything opposite of muh true western values, put a stop to it

What even was your argument again?

The Empire had bee partitioned before, Theodosius' real fault was dying too early. His sons were underage and had no government or military experience yet.

christianity is a nigger tier religion based on hatred and envy that discourages ambition and is against human nature

t. butthurt christcuck

Actually Justin II was the last Latin emperor, and even then Latin was still the official language until Heraclius. Your point about the emperors being Greek is retarded, Greeks were always part of the Roman Empire and Greek was always the lingua franca of the east.

Yes you've made these claims, but have you explained why you hold these views? Actually backed this argument with anything substantial?

No, your initial argument was that Constantine was the worst for "enabling" Christianity. It was then explained to you how his endorsement of Christianity was seen as a popular move among a people who were quickly taking to this new religion as it embodied a multitude of concepts that had been desired/sought after for centuries. You've since deflected to autistically screeching about Christianity.

yes, using the literal undisputed teachings of christ and st augustine

>based and hatred and envy
Envy is one of the seven deadly sins you retard. Why do people that hate Christianity know absolutely nothing about it?
>that discourages ambition and is against human nature
I don't see how you think this considering 1/4 of all humans follow it and some of history's most ambitious men were Christians. Clearly the people of antiquity thought Christianity served human needs better than paganism.

>it embodied a multitude of concepts that had been desired/sought after for centuries
it appears you neglected to mention even a single one of these concepts
you also made an appeal to stoicism, while also ignoring the fact that stoicism in no way does neuter ambition and will to power
my "autistically screeching about Christianity" is me explaining why this popularity with the masses was not a benevolent thing, but the thing that brought the downfall of the empire

>literally teach that getting thick rope through a needlehole is more possible than being rich and going to heaven
>literally teach that rich, intelligent and powerful people will burn in hell and the poor and dumb will watch from heaven for extra pleasure
>IT NO TEATZ ENVEE OR DISCOOREG AMBISSON :-DDDDDD

Well thank you for proving my point that people who hate Christianity know nothing about. Perhaps if you were too read the full chapter instead of the one verse that fits your agenda you would see that Christianity does not teach that rich, intelligent, and powerful people will burn in hell. Here it is from Mark 10:
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?”

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

>it appears you neglected to mention even a single one of these concepts.
In the following sentence you remark how I brought up the concept of stoicism. You are actually retarded. I also touched on the fact that Christian dogma served as a basis for intense theological debate and philosophical pondering and as such served the needs of the Roman intellectual class. I also mentioned how Constantine's fabled revelation prior to the Milvian Bridge and his order to his soldiers to paint their shields with the Chi Rho was formative in that it made Christianity a warrior's religion in place of the mystery cults that had dominated the Roman ranks. If you'd like some more concepts, monotheism itself was something Romans were quite familiar with and in part took to mass practice under Aurelian with Sol Invictus.
How does Christianity neuter ambition and will to power? Some of the most ambitious rulers in history were Christian. Charlemagne, Justinian, Majorian, the list goes on well into the modern day. I don't possibly see how you can create an effective argument that Christianity was a neutering of a will to power in any sense of the word when if anything the amount of people subjugated, land conquered, and nations toppled at the behest of Europe reached its apex under Christianity.
>stoicism in no way does neuter ambition and will to power
What? I didn't mention it because they're hardly correlated.
>my "autistically screeching about Christianity" is me explaining why this popularity with the masses was not a benevolent thing, but the thing that brought the downfall of the empire
Sweeping social change is hardly ever a graceful transition and Rome was no different. The end of the empire was marked with a vast multitude of shit hitting the fan, shifting religious values simply being a part of a wider picture.

(cont.)
>the thing that brought the downfall of the empire
This is literally the most tired argument of all time and is generally dismissed by the vast majority of historians in the modern day. Edward Gibbon put forth this idea and its generally agreed that his writings are pretty dated, as they were written in the 1700's. If you truly believe the crux of Rome's fall has only to do with shifting religious change, and not the massive migrational movements of Germanic/Steppe tribes (its worth mentioning that these tribes had made sweeping advances in military technology and organization, they were stronger than ever) infringing upon borders that could scarcely be defended, an array of disease and plagues that utterly decimated populations, an intense devaluation of Roman coin, a lack of neighbors to feasibly conquer to rejuvenate economic growth, a failed political system of new barracks emperors every other week cannibalizing the dwindling remains of the empire, and a level of corruption never seen before in Rome's history. If you want to discount these tangible, real threats that plagued Rome in favor of arguing "c-christianity turned everyone into cucks" I don't know what else to tell you.

>literally proves my point for me
thanks i guess
>However, there are other spectacles—that last eternal day of judgment, ignored and derided by nations, when after so many years the old age of the world and all the many things they produced will be burned in a single fire. What a broad spectacle then appears! How I will be lost in admiration! How I will laugh! How I will rejoice! How I will exult, as I see so many great kings who by public report were accepted into heaven groaning in the deepest darkness alongside those very men who testified on their behalf, along with Jove himself! They will include governors of provinces who persecuted the name of our Lord melting in flames fiercer than those with which they proudly raged against the Christians! And then those wise philosophers who convinced their disciples that nothing was of any concern to God and who claimed either that there is no such thing as a soul or that our souls would not return to their original bodies are shamed before those very disciples as they burn in the conflagration with them! And the poets, too, shaking with fear, not in front of the tribunal of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the Christ they did not anticipate!(17) Then it will be easier to hear the tragic actors, because their voices will be more resonant in their own calamity” (better voices since they will be screaming in even greater terror).

>“The comic actors will then be easy to recognize, for the fire will make them much more agile. Then the charioteer will be on show, all red in a wheel of fire, and the athletes will be visible, thrown, not in the gymnasium, but into the flames, unless I have no wish to look at them then, so that I can more readily cast an insatiable gaze on those who raged against our Lord.(18)‘This is the man,’ I will say, ‘the son of a workman or a prostitute’” (in everything that follows and especially in the well-known description of the mother of Jesus from the Talamud, Tertullian from this point on is referring to the Jews) “the destroyer of the Sabbath, the Samaritan possessed by the devil. He is the man whom you bought from Judas, the man who was beaten with a reed and with fists, reviled with spit, who was given gall and vinegar to drink. He is the man whom his disciples took away in secret, so that it could be said that he was resurrected, or whom the gardener took away, so that the crowd of visitors would not harm his lettuce.’ What praetor or consul or quaestor or priest will from his own generosity grant you this so that you may see such sights, so that you can exult in such things?(19) And yet we already have these things to a certain extent through faith, represented to us by the imagining spirit. Besides, what sorts of things has the eye not seen or the ear not heard and what sorts of things have not arisen in the human heart? (1. Cor. 2, 9). I believe these are more pleasing than the race track and the circus and both enclosures”
>St. Thomas Aquinas
>NOT REZENTFUL :-DDDDDD

>Disproves your point
>"Y-yeah that actually proved my point looks like I won another argument"

>Quotes Thomas Aquinas
yeah his writings and deliberations on Christianity which are seen as being something entirely new and enlightening and introduced the ideas of the Medieval Synthesis had a lot to do with the introduction of Christianity to Rome.

You are literally, and I mean literally, the dumbest fucking person I have ever seen on this board. I've been here for years. Congratulations.

>Christian dogma served as a basis for intense theological debate and philosophical pondering
such as shutting down Plato's Academy because "muh paganism"
such as overwriting papyri containing scientific work that would have put us hundreds of years ahead technologically because "muh paganism"
>How does Christianity neuter ambition and will to power?
by literally telling the common man that ambition, skepticism, and power, will send him to hell
the ones that were ambitious were the ones intelligent enough not to take religion seriously

how did it disprove my point? it literally said rich people can't go to heaven and the only way to save yourself is to abandon earthly matters and devote yourself to god

>i'm addressing how christianity is resentful
>spergs out because i'm right and claims i say thomas aquinas was related to how christianity came to power
nice try friend, use your brain a little more

Did you miss the part where it said "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God"?

>Shutting down Plato's Academy
You're retarded. Sulla destroyed the academy. This general living at the apex of whatever flawed perception of Roman culture you have was responsible for destroying this place. Interestingly fucking enough it was revived hundreds of years later as a center of Neoplatonist thought under Christian rule. While it was eventually shut down later on other philosophical schools thrived in Alexandria and Antioch and other areas of Eastern Rome for centuries after the fall of the WRE.
>such as overwriting papyri containing scientific work that would have put us hundreds of years ahead technologically because "muh paganism"
Again with this meme. Please kill it. Please let it die.
>by literally telling the common man that ambition, skepticism, and power, will send him to hell
the ones that were ambitious were the ones intelligent enough not to take religion seriously
Lmao yeah Charlemagne who couldn't even fucking read was so euphoric and too smart for these lame Christian cucks right.

Get the fuck out of here dude. You're probably either twelve years old or you're actually autistic.

>Christ has already said rich people can't be saved
>Is addressing who can be saved by saying those who abandon human matters and devote themselves to god
>Thinks Christ says rich people can be saved
i know religioncucks have limited comprehension capabilities but goddamn

I'm not mounting a defense of Christianity itself. I'm merely disproving some of these misplaced claims you are making and pointing out the errors in your supporting evidence. I'm nearly entirely confident that you googled "Christian resentment" and copy/pasted the first thing that came up without knowing who Aquinas was. The point here is that Aquinas was a theologian living over a millennia after Jesus and had ideas and thoughts that could not have possibly been influential and formative to Christianity itself since he wasn't fucking alive at the time. In an argument over how early Islam's dogma was influential in the conquests of the first Caliphate I wouldn't quote memri fucking tv.

>Sulla destroyed the academy
The Academy was shut down by Justinian
>Again with this meme. Please kill it. Please let it die
Non argument
Quick example, if christians didn't exist we'd have calculus more than 1,500 years before we did
>Lmao yeah Charlemagne who couldn't even fucking read was so euphoric and too smart for these lame Christian cucks right.
Yes he was, otherwise he would have stayed home and be a farmer

>such as shutting down Plato's Academy because "muh paganism"
the academy was already dead before it was shut down
>such as overwriting papyri containing scientific work that would have put us hundreds of years ahead technologically because "muh paganism"
The church was the main *preserver* of intellectual works, that's why the clergy were the top philosophers and scientists of their day. And the assertion that the church held back scientific progress is completely false and dismissed by most historians along with the "dark ages" myth.
>by literally telling the common man that ambition, skepticism, and power, will send him to hell
Christianity does not teach that and you know it
>the ones that were ambitious were the ones intelligent enough not to take religion seriously
Blatantly false, i'm sure you wouldn't say Justinian wasn't ambitious.

>Thinks Saint Thomas Fucking Aquinas has the same weight for Christianity as Memri TV for Islam
i hope this is bait

>if i completely misconstrue the meaning of these verses they fit my agenda. Wow look at that, checkmate Christians

>The Academy was shut down by Justinian
Yes, a Christian ruler shut down the school after the school had been revived under Christian rule a century earlier. It's almost as if these individual men aren't entirely representative of a religion at whole and have other compounding motives than "destroy knowledge."
>Quick example, if christians didn't exist we'd have calculus more than 1,500 years before we did
I'm beginning to think I'm taking bait here. It's a known fact that monasticism and Christian theologians were some of the greatest record keepers in history and preserved a plethora of ancient knowledge. This popular notion of the dark ages setting us back hundreds of years is taken seriously by nobody and if you'd merely google this for yourself you'd see for yourself. Christians do not act unilaterally and yes, some Christians sperged out and burned old shit. So did the Romans that predated them. So did the Persians. So did everyone in human history. This is the point I was making earlier about social change being a messy thing.
>Yes he was, otherwise he would have stayed home and be a farmer
So everyone in Europe under Christianity was a dumbass farmer?

>christ how can rich people be saved?
>they can't
>how can anyone be saved?
>by devoting themselves to god
>THIS MEANS RICH PEOPLE CAN BE SAVED
goddamn son

>Misunderstanding an analogous joke

>Every successful or important European figure was secretly an atheist

This has to be bait, you just said in your own post that anyone can be save by devoting themselves to God. The word "anyone" includes rich people

>yes, some Christians sperged out and burned old shit. So did the Romans that predated them. So did the Persians.
except christians did it on purpose
>So everyone in Europe under Christianity was a dumbass farmer?
everyone who took it seriously, pretty much yeah
>a Christian ruler shut down the school after the school had been revived under Christian rule a century earlier
i hope you see the difference there
>a ruler took action to shut it down
>a ruler did not take action to revive it
it's existence was merely tolerated, let alone encouraged

>God
>Tells you not to kill people
>Kill tens of thousands thousands to fullfill ambitions (which ambitions will send you to hell by default)
>aim krischan :-DDDDDD reely ai fallo it pashinatly :-DDDDD

>except christians did it on purpose
You're saying that before Christianity, all the burning of cities and religious places was just an accident?
>everyone who took it seriously, pretty much yeah
So Priests, Bishops, Archbishops and Popes didn't take Christianity seriously ?

I'm convinced that you're the dumbest person i've encountered on this board.

>Christians were the first to burn or destroy things on purpose
>Does not acknowledge me pointing out the existence of other schools of learning and thought across Eastern Rome.
>Does not acknowledge Sulla actually destroyed and killed everyone at the school at the its height, yet fixates on Justinian giving a mandate that it should be closed.
>Claims everyone that took religion in Europe was retarded, but acknowledges Charlemagne as an exception despite the fact everything Charlemagne did from seeking legitimacy from the Pope to forcibly converting Saxons was colored by his religion. This is just one of countless examples of individuals from Justinian to Julius II to Charles V that took religion seriously yet were massively influential and ambitious.

You done being a fucking retard?

>Can rich people be saved?
>No
>Who can be saved?
>Those who devote themselves to god
not a hard concept, is it?
especially considering that rich guy to tried to be Christ's follower but he sent him away because he wouldn't abandon all his belongings, huh?
one could say that RICH PEOPLE CAN"T BE SAVED
if only Christ had said something about it himself to clarify it, such as RICH PEOPLE CAN'T BE SAVED

So you're saying it'd be a good thing if people more strictly adhered to Christian values?

>You're saying that before Christianity, all the burning of cities and religious places was just an accident?
Before Christianity destruction occurred to kill people, under Christianity occurred to kill learning
>So Priests, Bishops, Archbishops and Popes didn't take Christianity seriously ?
Nope, especially not the Pope

No, I'm saying those who were successful did not adhere to Christian values

>Christians kill learning
Yeah god I wish these fucking christians would stop trying to blow up my school

Yeah but you pointed out they killed people which is bad. So they should've adhered to those views.

Working on a project of forces in the western empire based on the Notia Dignitatum wip

Wow, way to completely ignore the entire point I made about how ANYONE can get into heaven

>>Christians were the first to burn or destroy things on purpose
never said that
said christians were the first to destroy and burn things because they hated knowledge
>>Does not acknowledge me pointing out the existence of other schools of learning and thought across Eastern Rome.
there were other schools of though, heretics and heathens i believe they called them
>>Does not acknowledge Sulla actually destroyed and killed everyone at the school at the its height, yet fixates on Justinian giving a mandate that it should be closed.
sulla destroyed it because he wanted to devastate athens, not because he wanted to devastate other forms of thought
>>Claims everyone that took religion in Europe was retarded, but acknowledges Charlemagne as an exception despite the fact everything Charlemagne did from seeking legitimacy from the Pope to forcibly converting Saxons was colored by his religion. This is just one of countless examples of individuals from Justinian to Julius II to Charles V that took religion seriously yet were massively influential and ambitious.
>implying using religion as a tool to gain power means you actually believe in it

I never said being ambitious or killing people is bad. I said being ambitious and killing people is bad according t Christianity, yet these supposed "christians" did it anyway

>These Christians weren't actually Christians!

i'm fucking done arguing with someone as mentally deficient as you. Please go back to r/atheism and never come back here until you actually learn a thing or two about history or religion

i just wish they'd stop teaching creationism in schools and shutting down the theory of evolution desu

>do things that the bible explicitly prohibits
>thei stil krischan :-DDDD

>literally says rich people can't be saved
>sends people away because they are rich
>anyone can be saved

>They hated knowledge
No, because they saw other beliefs or peoples as an enemy incompatible with their own views. If you truly believe that the Christians were innovative in holding this view, you're a fucking idiot. If you truly believe Christians "hated knowledge" you're a fucking retard discounting hundreds of years of scientific innovation and social development that took place across Europe which was often patronized by the church.
>there were other schools of though, heretics and heathens i believe they called them
What does that hurt your fucking feelings or something? You're criticizing Christians for doing this without making note of how much animosity the Romans had for barbarians?
>sulla destroyed it because he wanted to devastate athens, not because he wanted to devastate other forms of thought
So that makes it okay?
>implying using religion as a tool to gain power means you actually believe in it
If you honestly, truly believe that all of these aforementioned figures in European history were secretly athiests you're a fucking idiot.

Is this thread locked

>If you honestly, truly believe that all of these aforementioned figures in European history were secretly athiests you're a fucking idiot.
So, you are saying you can murder tens of thousands, and lust after earthly possessions and be Christian at the same time?
>So that makes it okay?
No, but the purpose each time is different
>You're criticizing Christians for doing this without making note of how much animosity the Romans had for barbarians?
There's a difference in how Christians viewed richer, more successful people or people of other beliefs and how Romans viewed barbarians.
Romans viewed barbarians as ugly for being the opposite of what they were, their moral viewpoint originated by what they considered good, which was themselves.
The Christian viewpoint starts from what they, the low class, can't reach, which is rich and successful people, so they start by making them sinners, and success, ambition and power into sins, into evil, and thus by implication, making themselves saints, into good.
That's the difference between the two moral systems, Good vs Ugly and Good vs Evil
To learn more read Nietzsche, I'm afraid I'm bad at explaining his ideas.

>So, you are saying you can murder tens of thousands, and lust after earthly possessions and be Christian at the same time?
What I'm saying about the matter isn't as important as the fact that these people still considered themselves Christians. What it means to actually be a Christian is an entirely nebulous thing that is not a static, unyielding set of values that require strict adherence to in all ways. With anything religion serves as a tool to be manipulated with, but to call into question the faith of guys like Charlemagne or the Pope is fucking stupid. You've also changed the goal posts from "they were too smart for Christianity" to "they weren't true Christians" which is an entirely different argument.
>There's a difference in how Christians viewed richer, more successful people or people of other beliefs and how Romans viewed barbarians.
In some cases, yes, in others, no. I'm not sure why you consistently argue this point that Christians disdained the rich when in fact early Christians quickly inserted themselves among the ranks of the aristocracy and were notorious for their fiscal shrewdness in the way modern Jews are stereotyped as being.

How the Romans viewed barbarians ranged wildly as what constituted a barbarian and the characteristics of the people being argued as such varied.

>To learn more read Nietzsche, I'm afraid I'm bad at explaining his ideas.

I knew this is what you were gearing up towards. I figured you had probably just recently picked up on his ideas and commenced to poorly arguing on subjects such as master-slave morality.

>To learn more read Nietzsche, I'm afraid I'm bad at explaining his ideas.

>relied on the hatred the poor and downtrodden had for the rich and successful
Nah, it told people that material worldly wealth is sort of irrelevant compared to the Heavenly afterlife. I mean, to a certain extent that's bullshit, OK, but excessive materialism and obsession with it is certainly the wrong path. In other words, it made them OK with being poorfags instead of telling them they were being punished by the gods.

>What I'm saying about the matter isn't as important as the fact that these people still considered themselves Christians
Doesn't matter what you consider yourself to be. I can consider myself to be a cat, doesn't mean I am, especially when I consciously act against what a cat would do. They either consciously acted against what they claimed to believe, which means they knew they were not Christians, or they didn't know they acted against what they believed, which would make them ignorant of true Christian beliefs, which again means they were not Christians
> I'm not sure why you consistently argue this point that Christians disdained the rich when in fact early Christians quickly inserted themselves among the ranks of the aristocracy
They were not actual Christians
Christian teachings teach us that lusting after earthly possessions and power is against Christianity, and that's exactly what they did, and the same point as the one above applies to them.
>I figured you had probably just recently picked up on his ideas and commenced to poorly arguing on subjects such as master-slave morality
Explain what I was wrong about then? You didn't seem to find any logical mistake in what I wrote and instead you tried to argue around my point.

Your analogy doesn't hold up because being a cat entails a clear and obvious physical distinction. What it means to be a true Christian is something that has been argued over and fought over for hundreds of years. You can shift the goalposts all you want in a move of damage control as you struggle to argue what you've read of Neitzsche.

>They were not actual Christians
These Christians who laid the groundwork for theological debate and were formative in the rise of the Church as a hierarchical organization were Christian. Being Christian is not a quality unique to pig farmers and people who abstain from any vice or fiscal involvement. I don't know why you even argue this point because it's so far removed from your original argument. You begin by claiming Christianity was a corrosive and poisonous ideology that led to the fall of Rome and then when presented with the fact that the Christians who were actually involved in politics and members of the aristocracy (who were not poor, resentful people that hated knowledge) were the ones that oversaw Christianity's rise in Rome you deny they were true Christians in the first place? You've contradicted yourself for the umpteenth time and I strongly suggest you just come out and resign from this debate you're just digging yourself deeper into.
>Explain what I was wrong about then? You didn't seem to find any logical mistake in what I wrote and instead you tried to argue around my point.
Because if Neitzsche's thoughts have colored your argument you clearly haven't been paying attention or are a novice in regards to his philosophy. He believed that Christianity was symptomatic of weakness, decay, and fear as these were the qualities present in the West during the time of Christianity's rise. However, he was no fucking historian and was piggybacking ideas set forth by Gibbon much earlier.

I've found countless logical mistakes in your argument, which has consistently shifted and changed.