As a Christian I'm implored to believe that Rome rose as a culture and society because it was virtuous, in the Christian sense, and that it fell for the opposite reason. Well, is it true?
>>17996566During its rise Rome was literally genociding entire countries and selling millions into slavery.
>>17996566The opposite is true actually. Rome rose as a culture and society because it was virtuous, in the Pagan sense. And it fell once these values were replaced by judeo-christian degeneracy.
No not really, corruption and loss of virtues like piety and duty were only one of the interconnected reasons. The migration of the barbarian tribes played a much more important role. Christianity itself was a huge detriment to Rome, it replaced the divine sacredness of the state with the sacredness of a single non-political universal God, that was the nail in the coffin.
>>17996572Paganism is the opposite of anything moral. It's literally built around the worship of demons who reinforce sinful base desires of man. And, we all know what that leads to...
People who ascribe the fall of rome to some vague "virtue loss" are simply retarded.
>>17996572Extreme midwit take. Christian philosophy is deeply rooted in pagan and Greek philosophy. Pagan virtue wasn't this sigma shit you think it is
>>17996572But historical Christianity had enough COURAGE and WEALTH to ASSERT its DOMINANCE over SUBMISSIVE and MEEK pagans, who lacked PRIDE to fight back. It was the same way in Rome, in the rest of Europe, in Americans, in Africa. This is why paganism isn't VIRIL anymore.
>>17996588>The philosophy of the Truth is deeply rooted in demon worship and incoherent Greek philosophy...??
>>17996590I called you a midwit for a reason
>>17996588>Christian philosophy is deeply rooted in pagan and Greek philosophy.No it isn't, other than some some surface level stuff they are polar opposites. Pagan means strong, dominant, prideful, vindictive. Christian means weak, fearful, submissive.
>>17996581>it replaced the divine sacredness of the state with the sacredness of a single non-political universal God, that was the nail in the coffin.The Romans never lost that. If anything they just slapped a Christian label on top of it and changed the rhetoric to work for a monotheistic God.>>17996587This tb h>>17996606>No it isn't,Quite literally all Church theologians of Antiquity were taught philosophy. It was normal and expected.> other than some some surface level stuff they are polar oppositesRead any theologian and you will quickly discover that the ideas of Plato and Aristotle are everywhere.
>>17996572>pieta>clementia>justitua>temperantiaYou dont know shit about the Romans.
>>17996606Back to r*ddit neochud
>>17996606>>17996590Literally all of Christian teachings make direct references to Greco-Roman pre-Christian concepts as >>17996645 pointed out. There are obvious connections to stoicism, neoplatonism, aristotelianism, etc etcIt's incredibly midwit to think Christianity was a "Jewish religion" that was born in a vacuum and took over Rome. Christianity was popular among "gentiles" for a reason.
>>17996571This Roman virtues were different than Jewish virtues. Strength, Honor, Bravery etc. Christianity was so radical because its system of morality was completely alien to Roman sensibilities
While some Christian authors emphasized moral decay, historians now see this as part of a narrative lens rather than the primary cause. Vice may have weakened social cohesion, but external pressures and structural problems were decisive.
>>17996566Maybe Christianity brought people closer together. I don't think there was much cohesion for quite some time. The eternal city turned into a wasteland, very broadly speaking.
>>17996566By the late 6th century Rome was about the size of Berlin Territory wise with a pop .probably about 35000-40000. Each of the kings expanded their territory, and the more you expand the more inevitable conflict becomes. It turns into a vicious cycle defense through offense. Christianity had nothing to do with the rise of Rome.
*Late 6th centry BC.
