He and Pilate represented the empire. Or he represented the army.
To some, sure, to other Christians, he represented himself, and to some others, he was a saint.
Yet again, I didn't say christians were opposed to the empire... Just that most wouldn't fight for it, a problem which became serious when they became the great majority.
So, all that talk about Romans being evil? Anyway, some Christians didn’t fight as some pagans didn’t fight, don’t you believe that at least some of them would not fight simply because they’d have stayed at home rather than get stationed in Britannia? It doesn’t have to be all about faith.
Of course he mentioned church state relations, I commented on that.
You said he preferred to avoid the topic. He didn’t.
Estate owners were obligated to provide recruits and sons of soldiers were supposed to serve. True some estate owners wouldn't provide good men or any. But as I wrote before....for the most part, the problem was unwillingness to serve. Men often cut off their thumbs to avoid service--a problem that Goldsworthy says became worse in the fourth century than previously. (I don't recall if he tried to explain why, but he did note evidence for increasing avoidance of service.) Christian senators may have complained about pagans being employed, but what choice did the state have if not enough christians would fight? There's no doubt the new christian empire by c 400 was heavily dependent on barbarians. The clear implication is that most christians would not fight.
Yet again, barbarians didn't have the historical baggage of Rome nor the admonitions of pacifistic church authorities not to fight.
Poor people can’t run away from conscription, since the middle of the fourth century there were severe laws for those who’d cut their thumbs. The only way they could escape the law was under the protection of rich landowners, who sheltered them from service. Again, there’s a lot of reasons why people don’t want to join the army, then as now, it doesn’t have to be all about faith.
Well it's great to hear you're an atheist, welcome to the club.

But unless you're a prof yourself, you don't have such things as tenure to worry about; too much controversy can be detrimental to one's career. And I'm not blaming christianity just because I don't believe in it. I think christianity played an important role in western civilization; in some ways it had a very positive effect. But I think the evidence for christianity sapping the strength of the empire is quite good.
I’m still an amateur, nonetheless, I wouldn’t support Christianity just because it’s a trend, heck, some historians thrive on controversy.
From your argument, it looks like the whole reason the empire fell was because of Christianity, which, come on, no matter what you believe, it couldn’t have been just that now could it?