Here’s a quote

When Christianity spread into the Roman Empire it got absorbed into the culture of patriarchy, nationalism and, eventually, capitalism. The faith was morphed from a message of liberation for all the wretched of the earth into a self-righteous cudgel for the rich and powerful.
As you may know by now, the Roman emperor Constantine forced Christian bishops to come up with creedal statements that had little or nothing to do with the original teachings of Jesus. For many, the Christian religion was reduced to supernatural claims, cultic moralism and shameless toadying to the hierarchy of the day. For many, Christianity was reframed from a religion of empathic servanthood to one of judgmental sectarian control.
The new imperial Christians were superstitious and ignorant about this world, but felt they were experts on the world to come. The new imperial Christians weren’t so good at loving their non-Christian neighbors, but felt they were good neighbors to their new and improved Jesus who now preferred working through the rich and powerful, and was no longer concerned with the poor and outcast.
I believe there is confusion in calling the Christianity of Constantine and that of Jesus by the same name. I’m not saying we should argue about who gets the label, but it is important for somebody to say if some Christians want to force their dogma into the public square, that is the Christianity of Constantine not Jesus!
Somebody needs to say, If there is a mass shooting and some Christians are more concerned about protecting their guns than the children, that is the Christianity of Constantine not Jesus!
Somebody needs to say if some Christians are more concerned about the the success of the American economy than the plight of the working poor, that is the Christianity of Constantine not Jesus!
And, finally, somebody needs to say, if the cross is a symbol of Christian superiority instead of a call to suffer on behalf of the oppressed of every nation, that is the Christianity of Constantine not Jesus!”

This statement is a passionate, rhetorically charged critique of what the author perceives as a distortion of Christianity through its historical entanglement with political power, especially during and after the time of Constantine. It blends historical commentary with moral and theological judgment. Let’s break it down in terms of accuracy and logical fallacies:

🔍 Accuracy

✅ Historically grounded elements:

1. Constantine and Christianity:
   • It’s accurate that under Constantine (early 4th century), Christianity transitioned from a persecuted sect to a religion with state backing.
   • The First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) was convened under Constantine, and it did result in a creedal statement (the Nicene Creed). However, the idea that Constantine “forced” bishops to create creeds that had “little or nothing” to do with Jesus’ teachings is an overstatement. The council aimed to resolve theological disputes (like Arianism), not to invent Christianity anew.
2. Christianity and power:
   • There’s scholarly consensus that after Constantine, Christianity increasingly aligned with imperial power. This alignment likely altered the tone and priorities of the institutional church—though to say the entire faith was reduced to “toadying” is more polemical than precise.
3. Critique of modern political alliances:
   • The statement critiques modern Christianity’s associations with gun rights, nationalism, and capitalism. These critiques are interpretative rather than factual—they reflect a particular moral or theological perspective, not an empirical claim.

⚠️ Logical Fallacies and Rhetorical Devices

1. Hasty Generalization

• The phrase “the new imperial Christians weren’t so good at loving their non-Christian neighbors” generalizes a vast and diverse group. Not all Christians under imperial Rome—or now—fit these critiques.

2. False Dichotomy (Either-Or Fallacy)

• The argument often frames two mutually exclusive Christianities: Jesus’ Christianity (pure, servant-hearted) vs. Constantine’s Christianity (corrupt, power-hungry). Reality is more nuanced. Throughout history, many believers have expressed both sincere faith and problematic entanglements with power.

3. Appeal to Emotion

• Lines like “more concerned about protecting their guns than the children” use emotionally powerful language to provoke a moral response. This doesn’t make the point false, but it’s more rhetorical than logical.

4. No True Scotsman

• The assertion that certain political or cultural expressions of Christianity are “not the Christianity of Jesus” can lean into this fallacy: redefining a group in a way that excludes counterexamples (e.g., “no true Christian would do that”).

5. Slippery Slope (implied)

• There’s an underlying suggestion that once Christianity became entangled with empire, it inevitably became morally compromised. While influence and compromise occurred, “inevitability” over-simplifies the range of Christian responses over time.

🧠 Summary

• Historically inspired, but simplified and stylized for rhetorical impact.
• The statement is best read as a prophetic or moral critique, not a scholarly argument.
• Logical fallacies include: hasty generalization, false dichotomy, appeal to emotion, and potentially No True Scotsman.