Which is all that I’m doing. You’re completely arguing past the point I was making.

Do we have Christians in this country who would restrict their countrymen’s rights in support of their view of morality? Sure.

And where does that doctrine of rights come from, that can be held up against this misplaced moralizing?

Christianity is much less bloody because civilization is much less bloody (at least for those of us living outside of Rwanda).

And why is civilization much less bloody?

As long as Christianity is a powerful force in the world it will attract men seeking power for power’s sake, who will use a cloak of Christianity to further their own means.

Exactly, which is how many charges of Christianity’s bloodlust can be answered.

There are still “uncontacted” tribes living in the world today!

I see how historically one can make that argument, but let’s be honest; it’s human nature. Nothing has been extinguished. Will there be a future religious leader claiming to be a Christian who gets followers to die or kill in the name of what he calls Christianity? Almost definitely. Do we have Christians in this country who would restrict their countrymen’s rights in support of their view of morality? Sure. What do you think a Pat Robertson Presidency would look like if the Congress and Supreme Court were stacked with Pat Robertson clones?

Christianity is much less bloody because civilization is much less bloody (at least for those of us living outside of Rwanda). Just as there were Christians who were not blood-thirsty savages when the Spanish were killing everything that moved in Central and South America in the name of Christ, there are Christians today who lie, cheat, steal and kill while hiding behind a bastardized version of the Old and New Testaments. “The Devil can quote scripture for his purpose.” There will be blood shed in the “name” of Christianity in the future, just as there was in the past. As long as Christianity is a powerful force in the world it will attract men seeking power for power’s sake, who will use a cloak of Christianity to further their own means.

First, I know that (though that didn’t stop them from having the gladiatorial games later in their history). Second, the Romans weren’t the only pagans. Gauls, Thracians, and Celts were among the many groups outside of Roman lands on the Continent. In the British Isles, you had a real thicket; Jutes, Angles, Frisians, Scoti, Atacoti, Picti, Irish, etc. And up in Scandinavia you would have had Norwegians, Danes, Finns, Lapps, and so on. Not counting that region, some of the last pagans to convert did so at the end of the 10th century. Considering the records are a little spotty from that period, pockets of it might have lingered centuries longer.

Human sacrifice has always been the rage in the Levant..the story of Abraham and Isaac has always made me ill…

Not exactly sure why, since Isaac was never sacrificed. Abraham assumed God had something of up his sleeve. As Paul put it, Abraham knew very well that God could bring Isaac back from the dead, since it was God who had given him Isaac miraculously to begin with. In the end, Isaac wasn’t sacrificed. God didn’t want it, but used Isaac as a symbol to demonstrate a point to Abraham. We Christians, of course, point to this as being prophetic.

Of course, you could disregard the miraculous elements of the story, but then you have to to take a priori stance, since nothing in the text can be used to separate the two elements. In which case, in order to be consistent, you would have to regard the story as almost purely mythological or allegorical, which in turn means you still have to interpret the story with in its own framework; Abraham had faith in God and his goodness. Abraham, who by the time he had Isaac was a very old man, had witnessed God’s miracles and the fulfillment of the promises made to him.

It should also be noted that the Mosaic law forbids human sacrifice, long before the Romans threw off their Etruscan rulers.