Then why bring it up at all? What revelance was there in the fact 50% of the Egyptian medicines are still being used to the debate? Without context, it is a meaningless comment which leaves a false impression.What I actually said about Egyptian medicine was that 50% of the medicine they used back then is still in use today, without any implication that their medicine was better than ours, so why distort what I wrote?
There I'd no comparison. Egyptian temples were not places of learning for all the different fields of knowledge, in legal, as well as science in addition to mathemstics, philosophy, medicine, and philosophy. Nor were the Egyptian sources of creation of new knowledge and ideas as Christian universities. Many of the greatest scientist and philosophers in history were associated with universities, but that is not true for Egyptian temples.In Egypt the temples served as places of learning, so Christianity has nothing to brag about in that regard.
The literacy rate even in late medieval Europe was far higher than ancient Egypt, and far higher in early modern Europe.It's possible to point to Egypt and say that only a few were educated. On the other hand, it's possible to point to, for instance, Britain, and shw that there was no universal education until about 1870. Before then education was paid for.
As for schools, even on colonial New England had public schools in the he 17th century. And contrary to what you most certainly impliedz the there many free grammar schools starting in Tudor times, and charity and parish schools are that did no require fees before 1870. Before that time, education was largely beint handle by religion. 1870 is merely the date when education became universal and mandatory, but long before that there were free local parish schools providing education to a far far higher percentage of the population in than in ancient Greek, Rome, and Egypt. Most parishes egen in 18th century had some school, but most local Egyptian and Roman, Greek villages did not. Even fee paying, a school would be cheaper than having to hire a private tudor as you had to do in Ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt.
True, but the ancient Greeks and Romans did. The Old Testament indicates as strong Egyptian influence, and the Judeo-Christian opposition to infaticise and human sacrifice may have been due to Egyptian influence. Howeger, the rest of the ancient classical Greco-Roman world.did practice infanticide, and Egyptian influence was confined to Egypt, while Christians stopped the practiced.Infanticide was never practiced in Egypt.
Apparently, you haven't studied history very much or paid any attention to what I wrote either. Classical Greco-Roman and ancient Egypt was technologically stagnant. There was little major technological advancement in the Roman Empire, and after a brief burst, it had largely stalled in anfient Greece as well. As I said, you could take a 1000 year period, from 300 BC to 300 AD, and overall, most technology didn't see any major advancement - ship building remained the same, farming remained the same, weapons and armor did not see much advancement, iron production methods the same. Take just 500 years in Christian Europe, and you see radical changes in ship design, navigation, iron production, book production, weapons and armor. Such advances are still continuing today.As for scientific advances, you may think it is due to belief in superstition, I know it is simply the consequences of a progression that has taken place since we stopped being hunter gatherers. At various times tipping points are reached and things advance at a greater pace,for instance in modern times the invention of electronics, an invention of man, not a supernatural being.
All previous civilizations would have periods of rapid advances, followed by periods of technological stagnation in innovation. Ancient Summerian civilization wasn't much more advanced than it was 2000 years earlier. Anxient Roman civilization wasn't technologically tundamentally more advance in 300 CE than was in 300 BC. And when the Romans conquered Ptolemaic Egypt, it wasn't fundamentally more advanced than it had been at its founding hundreds of years earlier.
Yes it is. Ma'at was around as long as Christianity, and did nothing to end that social ill. Christianity did.To make a statement about Ma'at not ending slavery when slavery by Christians countries existed well into the 19th century AD is, well, not a valid point.
Before I he rise of Christianity, there was no concept of an international charity, or at least no one was doing it. That many are now created by secural people, many probably athiest, doesn't take away the concept of international aid didn't arise with them. Christian international aid began with the first Christisns, where St. Paul collected aid from the Gentile churches to help out the poor in Jerusalem.And you complain that Ma'at did not encourage "International charity", really, thousands of years ago. So if an earthquake occurred in China in 2000 BC the Egyptians should have sent aid? So, how long has Christianity existed, and how long has the concept of "International aid" existed. Also, are only Christians charitable? are only Christians decent humane people?
As you.usual, you ignore the positive commands that are through out the Bible. Commands about decent treatment of foreigners and orphans and widows, about not judging others, of examples of helping others in need (Good Samaritan). Your insinuation that the Bible only has negative commands is not true. (By failing to mention any positive you are implying just that.)The 42 "negative confessions" makes the Ten Commandments looks very inadequate, particularly when four of them are specific to the belief and worship of the Abrahamic god, leaving only six to use as a moral code. Of the 42 "Negative confessions", four are about the gods, but that leaves 38 as a basis for a moral code, not a paltry six. Then there are the other 40 "negative confessions".