If you all yourself a Christian, you are a Christian. That's all that matters... if you want to claim only good Christians are actually Christian, then you're kidding yourself.

Classic Roman philosophers followed a specific approach to their learning and teachings, which was arguably not compatible with Christian teachings. While there were two branches of Neoplaplatonism vying for popularity at the time (one which accepted Christianity (the one Hypatia followed) and one which actively opposed it). The murder of Hypatia cemented the dominance of the branch which opposed Christianity. After Hypatia's death philosophers were no longer interested in pretending their teachings could co-exist with the church.

Once again, I am speaking about Hypatia and the Christians + Church she faced in her time. I see no relevance of Justin the Martyr... a man who lived and died three hundred years before this story, in a Rome where the Christians did not yet have a significant amount of power.

Given how you've chosen to comment on this post, I don't think you're interested in hearing a single word against Christians and I don't think you're capable of deciding what is or isn't bias. For centuries Christianity was directly opposed to mathematical, philosophical and scientific progress.

I also find it astounding that in an article about an intelligent and powerful woman who fought against the norms of her time and passively opposed a violent and corrupt regime which ultimately murdered her... all you find to complain about is how someone has called out your precious religion. Perhaps the reason Christianity remains so out of touch is an inability to look beyond its own shortcomings even for a moment to appreciate the achievements of others. So if my article is biased, tell me which of Hypatia's achievements were unearned? How was she not a phenomenal mathematician, scientist and educator? Because in the end, that is what the article is about.