Why do people push the "Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages!" meme
>>1420570
because christianity caused the fall of Rome
>>1420578
How?
>I'm a neo-Christian, I've been 'redpilled' (enlightened for all you immature fools out there) by /pol/
>>1420596
Nice argument for why Christianity caused the Dark Ages, fuck face.
I haven't seen someone push it in ages.
Because they're fools professing themselves to be wise who hate God
>>1420570
Can thank the Franfurt School for that.
>>1420596
Posts like this should get you autobanned, honestly. Take this crap back to /pol/.
The "dark ages" itself is a meme. Civilizations have always collapsed.
>>1420578
>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.
>>1420578
gibbon pls go, you're drunk
>>1420570
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
>>1420712
>>1420596
>>1420728
>>1420732
>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
>>1420735
Their one reason is always 'The Reason' for Rome's decline (and usually retarded on top of it)
>>1420735
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.
>>1420732
>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
>>1420732
>Russia becomes atheist
>suddenly, gulags
>>1420753
>it's an amateur mistaking the early modern period with medieval times episode
>>1420735
hurrrrr because real life is so simple and only one thing can be 100%
>>1420753
>there was no sand niggers in Europe and no terorist attacks, the society was violent, but the people were safe unlike now.
>>1420753
>it's a "the Spanish Inquisition was how every Christian everywhere and in every time period acted" episode
>>1420753
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.
>>1420772
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.
>>1420753
>setting people on fire
That's a Renaissance thing, the glorious rebirth of civilisation that you fedoralords love so much.
>>1420842
>who were the Cathars and what happened to them
>>1420842
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.
>>1420849
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.
>>1420849
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.
>>1420871
>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.
>>1420688
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?"
>>1420875
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.
>>1420900
You sound like a 'moderate' muslim
>>1420893
>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
>>1420898
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.
>>1420712
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.
>>1420913
>Horrible crimes committed because of Christianity isn't Christianity's fault because theology
>>1420910
That makes no sense.
>>1420913
>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/
>>1420570
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.
>>1420920
>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.
>>1420712
>Multiculturalism destroyed Rome
I don't even know how to address such stupidity.
>>1420932
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.
>>1420939
What killed Rome was letting a bunch of barbarian tribes settle inside Roman territory, that's pretty fucking obvious.
>>1420939
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!???
>>1420900
Papist scum
Kill yourself
>>1420948
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.
>>1420948
Please demonstrate how that was what killed Rome if it's so fucking obvious.
>>1420948
It shouldn't be called the barbarian invasions but the barbarian immigrations since most were let in willingly.
>>1420900
>Cathars were heretics you dumb shit.
So, what you're saying is that disagreeing with the church is grounds for being murdered?
>>1420971
>please demonstrate how Rome letting barbarian tribes occupy its land led to Rome becoming occupied by barbarian tribes
>>1420968
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.
>>1420984
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.
>>1420985
Not an argument
Why do people push the "Christianity is responsible for saving knowledge!" meme when this is objectively wrong?
>>1420996
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.
>>1420999
>I'm retarded
okay.
>>1421005
>countless religious wars, witch burnings, and persecutions that ravaged Europe following the Reformation
>greatest era of peace and prosperity
How delusional can you get?
>>1421005
lmao get back to burning witches and not bathing.
>>1420985
Rome always had barbarians in their land though
>what is transalpine gaul
>>1421004
It's not wrong though
>>1421005
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.
>>1421004
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.
>>1421032
>it was the Church who scrambled to preserve as much literature that agreed with their doctrines as possible
fify
>>1421048
Yeah especially things like Plato and Aristotle, famous Christians.
>>1420948
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/
>>1421062
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.
>>1420712
/pol/
>>1421006
nice argument faggot
>>1420570
Because Constantine created the /his/ dark ages.
>>1421016
No, it only had conquered barbarians that got romanised.
>>1421207
Did you learn a new word?
>>1421062
>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.
>>1421321
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.
>>1420930
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.
>>1420570
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
>>1423010
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.
>>1423091
And then they stopped for the barbarians they allowed to live within the empire.
>>1423042
Is that square commieblock supposed to be impressive?
>>1424094
>shitting on Roman architecture while posting something at least partly inspired by it
>shitting on Roman architecture at all
>>1424103
How is Gothic architecture inspired by Roman architecture? Because it has columns? lmao
>>1424103
>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".
>>1420578
Not true, actually Christianity gave a boost to keep going the Empire.
Dont believe me? Check ERE and how long lasted til 1453.
>>1420948
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.
>>1424118
>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.
>>1420893
Daily reminder that Karl Marx is personally responsible for 100 million deaths worldwide.
>>1424129
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.
>>1424121
Show me one thing that this >>1424094 has in common with this >>1423042
>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.
>>1424137
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
>>1424152
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.
>>1424200
So? Why do you keep going on about the Huns? The Huns were only there for a short time, the rest of the time the Romans were fighting against the Visigoths, and the Burgonds and the Vandals... If you cut off your arm to keep gangrene from spreading but then die from blood loss, does that make you less dead?
>>1420570
>"Christianity is responsible for the Dark Ages!" meme
First you need to consider that this started as the "Catholic Church is responsible for the Dark Ages!" meme made by Protestants as slander.
They desperately wanted to portray the Church as being an irredeemable oppressive institution and the Reformation as a new beginning for Christianity and human progress.
Thus, all the absurd ideas, ("all scientist were burned at the stake", "Flat Earth", "knowledge didn't exist") seeped into the conscious of Westerners.
All modern anti-theists had to do is exploit something that was already deeply rooted.
And it's ironic that modern US Protestants are saying things like "Christianity built everything" and "Dark Ages is a myth", when it was their ancestors who created this situation in the first place.
The denigration of the Middle Ages began as long ago as the sixteenth century, when humanists, the intellectual trendsetters of the time, started to champion classical Greek and Roman literature. They cast aside medieval scholarship on the grounds that it was convoluted and written in ‘barbaric’ Latin. So people stopped reading and studying it. The cudgels were subsequently taken up by English writers such as Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Thomas Hobbes (1588– 1679) and John Locke (1632–1704). The waters were muddied further by the desire of these Protestant writers not to give an ounce of credit to Catholics. It suited them to maintain that nothing of value had been taught at universities before the Reformation. Galileo, who thanks to his trial before the Inquisition was counted as an honorary Protestant, was about the only Catholic natural philosopher to be accorded a place in English-language histories of science.
>>1424275
In the eighteenth century, French writers like Voltaire (1694–1778) joined in the attack. They had their own issues with the Catholic Church in France, which they derided as reactionary and in cahoots with the absolutist monarchy. Voltaire and his fellow philosophes lauded progress in reason and science. They needed a narrative to show that mankind was moving forward, and the story they produced was intended to show the Church in a bad light. ‘Medieval philosophy, bastard daughter of Aristotle’s philosophy badly translated and understood’, wrote Voltaire, had ‘caused more error for reason and good education than the Huns and the Vandals. His contemporary Jean le Rond d’Alembert (1717–83) edited an immense encyclopaedia that became the epitome of the philosophes’ achievement. D’Alembert’s influential Preliminary Discourse to this magnum opus set out the now traditional story of how scientific progress had been held back by the Church during the Middle Ages. He blamed ‘the condition of slavery into which almost all of Europe was plunged and the ravages of superstition which is born of ignorance and spawns it in turn.But now, D’Alembert said, in his own time rational men could throw off the yoke of religion.
>>1424277
John William Draper and Thomas Huxley introduced this thesis to English readers in the nineteenth century. It was given intellectual respectability through the support of Andrew Dickson White (1832– 1918), president of Cornell University. The hordes of footnotes that mill around at the bottom of each page of his book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology give the illusion of meticulous scholarship. But anyone who checks his references will wonder how he could have maintained his opinions if he had read as much as he claimed to have done.
The great weight of the assault on the Middle Ages carried on into the twentieth century. Popular historians based their work on previous popular histories and perpetuated the myth that the period was an interruption to mankind’s progress. Television shows by Carl Sagan, James Burke and Jacob Bronowski handed the thesis on to a new generation. Even when someone discovered evidence of reason or progress in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it could easily be labelled ‘early-Renaissance’ so as to preserve the negative connotations of the adjective ‘medieval’.
