Mesopotamic cultures also included the sacrifice of small children,
You are thinking of Carthage and Phoenicia, the accuracy of such accounts are disputed and completely irrelevant - they are contemporaries of Hebraic Law, not its ancestors.
burning, and eating of the flesh,
I can find no reliable source of such. Like many rival tribes around the world, early Israelites shared many gods with and spread many vicious rumors about their Canaanite neighbors, but this is also completely irrelevant - both cultures vastly postdate their ancestors.
as well as the sacrifice of virgins to their gods...
Like the Hebrews themselves so readily attest to doing in Numbers 31:40
"And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the Lord'S tribute was thirty and two persons."
Persons specifically being women who did not know man.
This is the only firsthand testimony of virgin sacrifice that I know of from any middle eastern culture. You're welcome to point to more of course.
where few, the very few women that were in the high class were offered equality...
Which is better than any woman had under Hebraic Law. Menstruation as a sin? That she has to make an animal offering for? Seriously?
Slavery was also a very avid practice among them.
As it was among the Hebrews, I'm not sure what your point is here.
As for the Chinese... well, Let us just say that their concept of slavery is very, very loose, where a person is forced to work for house and board under horrible conditions, with very little rest, and little pay... very similar to how non-slaves were treated in places like Britain, and the USA during the industrial era... just not nice....
This happened across many cultures as those in power found ways to avoid taxation, eventually creating their own fiefdoms from themselves as they gained more control of the surrounding land. How serfdom actually ended is an interesting topic in its own right.
Also, ideas of racism are extremely unChristian,
The definition of Christian is one who believes that Christ is Savior. Hundreds of thousands journeyed to Iberia, fought, bled, and died to reclaim the peninsula in the name of Christ, over the span of seven centuries. That it led to such a racist attitude is horrific, yes. But casually dismissing seven centuries of three modern nations' history and just tossing it off as 'unChristian' feels like willful ignorance at best.
and started either way, way before, or came up with the concept of Evolution... The Stronger Race, which was taken to heart by Hitler...
If you want to debate evolution, make a new thread with your questions. It is too large a topic for this discussion.
The Nordic culture is one that I agree was very pure in spirit... but that was because they weren't exactly a civilization to begin with,
You have got to be joking.
The Nordic culture founded
- The Keivan Rus (which became Russia)
- York (as in the city from which New York takes its name)
- Norse-Gaelic culture which profoundly influenced Scotland
- The Normans, which in 1066 launched a minor invasion that led to a civilization you might have heard of called the British Empire
In short, Norse influence directly
led to the three most powerful nations this planet has ever seen - and when China and India overtake Russia for certain it's not like you're going to argue for their
Christian roots. Claiming that they were not a civilization is directly insulting the cultural legacy of nearly every single member of this forum. Heck, Scandinavians make up the majority of E's non-Anglophone population.
or else you might call each and every tribe in early North America its own civilization... the small tribes were good, but once they grew, like, for example, the Aztecs, then shit just went out the window. Once rulers were implemented in Scandinavia under the Catholic Church, bad stuff began happening.
The Aztecs were a water empire (much like China). What happened to Native Americans was a lack of metallurgical discipline and, of course, the whole plague business.
Also, I would appreciate if you didn't associate Christianity with those that claim profession, but never follow it's teachings...
Which teachings? Whose teachings are right?
I have profound
respect for the Gnostic movement. Not so much for much else.
lest athiestys all be judged among their more famous peers, like, say, Hitler, Stalin, the various Communist rulers in modern Africa...
Hitler was not an atheist.
And it'd be fair, if you're going to compare atheist to atheist, we should compare theist to theist, and compare you to Timur - the greatest mass-murderer the world has ever known. One might also point out Ghengis Khan's association with Nestorian Christianity.
The real enemy is of course the concept of ideology itself.
There are excesses everywhere, and I am sure that if everyone adopted the 'love thy neighbor' policy, wars would start over just what the term 'neighbor' means... Mankind is by nature very warring, violent, greedy, and selfish,
Hardly. Humans are only this way as a whole when they are driven by desperation, fear, or ignorance.
and no matter what system you put in place, there will always be those that find a way to circumvent it, or use it to their own ends...
Which is why it should be our duty to make sure such people never amass power, and if they do, that it be deprived from them. People such as this are actually quite rare.
Civilization that claim to follow Biblical teaching should also not be held in very high regard... they are poor, if dominant, examples... however, every other major system, once reaching its peak, began to decline...
That's a tautology.
Read the Bible, and you will see all these concepts written here... slavery was allowed in the Hebraic law, but the random taking of slaves was not...
And the sixteen thousand virgin women mentioned in Numbers above? Oh right, they're not people, they're property to be raped.
only when you owed a man, could you be taken as his servant, and even then, in seven years, you were set free. Not to mention that you were severely punished if you even so much as mistreated your slaves... In the Early Christian days, slave owners that were converted set all of their slaves free, although many of the freed men and women wereknown to remain with their former masters.
This is how indentured servitude often went until the beginning of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the racism that drove it, of course, being itself driven by the Reconquista.
Women as held as equal to the men in the household,
Not under Pauline doctrine. "Women, be subservient to your husbands."
men and women of all races mingling in harmony. Paul went on and on about all this in his writings.
Racism as we know it is, again, a concept invented a thousand years later during the Reconquista. Paul didn't go on about it because he had no concept of it as emerged after the Spanish struggle with the Moor.
There were even female bishops at the time... until it got institutionalized by the Catholic Church, and, once again, grew so far as to get certain men thinking that they should stifle everything.
Find me one confirmed female bishop in ancient Pauline tradition.
The Gnostics did this. But the Gnostics did not preach the same Gospel as you do.
Of course, the first technical republic was Palestine under the Hebrews, where the whole country was divided into what could be termed as states, and leaders were elected from among the people... Women in this society were also held in very high regard, and the laws were enforced by these called 'judges'... But, as you can see if you read it, excesses happened a lot, as they do everywhere...
If a king holds high authority, it's not a republic, no matter how strongly you wish to claim so. Not that pre-6th century records of the then-polytheistic Hebrews is well-known anyway, this just comes off as revisionism. If they were an actual Republic, why the Hasmonean dynasty when they finally achieved independence?