Not to the early Christians it wasn’t. The early Christians movements (before they were co-opted by Empire) were radically egalitarian.

That would be irrelevant even if it was true. We are not in the second century. It is a very controversial position either way.

Egalitarian values certainly did emerge out of Christianity, and there was a change in that direction even then, but they were not egalitarian in the modern sense.

Also, please be careful when generalising early Christianty, as it was a very diverse group of sects that hardly agreed on anything.

Early religious communities sometimes were very accepting, and women played a role as well, but they still existed in a very patriarchal culture, so you should not expect their women to be equal to men in society, and there were absolutely positions of authority.

They opposed the empire because initially, they were not perceived by anyone as a group distinct from Jews, which were very hostile to it. However, there were appeals made by powerful Christians later to be recognized as a non-threat to imperial power, and ultimately, they succeeded.

Even so, the Jews simply wanted independence, not equality. The idea of social equality did not even exist then. They were equal in Christ, not in society.

Christianity was not coopted by the empire, it conquered it.

The idea that early christianity was somehow “more pure” I do not accept as well. I would say the Christian tradition has only been enriched over the years, and without a unified basic set of dogmas it would really make much sense.

Vive le dirt!!!

Well, it does not have an economy, so why would it have money?

Also, it doesn’t have politics and society in the conventional sense, but men are clearly subordinate to God. Christ is king, this is the way Christians think, so I am not sure this is a correct comparison.

The question of “should Christians strive for a classless society” is a complex one. Egalitarian ideals are very new compared to Christianity, but some Christians now think that in the “fallen world” authority is undesirable as it can be abused. This is not common though.

However, Marxism is an anti-religious ideology. Marxists both believe that religion will disappear after “the base” changes and it will become, ultimately, obsolete, and also have historically persecuted and enacted violence on Christians. So I am not surprised there are not many Marxist Christians.

Is this Martin Luther?

In my experience, people that don’t like how German sounds can’t understand it. Once I started learning it, I found it to be quite pleasant.

I believe this is the reason why you don’t like French, despite the fact it is a very beautiful language: you don’t speak it.

French is the international language of jurisprudence, hardly irrelevant. I quite like German myself, but that is hardly a reason to stop using French.

I can keep track of more than one word perfectly fine.

Why do you only want one language?

Sorry, I don’t talk to HOMOSEXUALS who don’t appreciate masculinity.

I should say, they, unlike you, are entitled to being entitled.

In the end, their language is used, and yours is not.

whined and almost left

This is called “havinge le backbone” in France, you should try it.

French is an international language, and also, is the language of international jurisprudence, which more that warrants it’s use as a OTAN official language.

Women get horny too, fyi. And I can’t blame them, considering how hot MEN are.

It is easier to build muscle for men, and a lot of men and women try really hard to do that. Being stronger is not about being a “pack mule”, can an average woman pick me up? NO!

You just don’t appreciate the aesthetics of masculinity. I think your aversion to it is pretty gay tbh.

Lol less risk averse is a debuff that leads to the shorter life span avg.

You are such a boring person.

Also, if something can’t be disproven, it isn’t science.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science

Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.

My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.

We have patriarchy.

Bur seriously, being tall means you are hotter than you would be as a shortie. You also look more dignified and authoritative if you are tall. So that is definetly an advantage.

We have more muscles generally. Muscles are very hot useful to have. But actually, being built more athletically is an advantage in terms of aesthetics IMO.

Also, no periods or menopause.

Reproduction is easier.

And we are less risk averse which means we are cooler on average.