It doesn't matter how you call it, whether "Ancient thought" or "blah blah", what matters is that what is being referred to. It is about how people thought about human actions before Christianity took over.
My second point is that attempting to reason about, or exclude topics from, something as practically diverse and unknown as “Ancient thought” in order to support the primacy of a specific religion is essentially folly.
I write this as someone who despises significant portions of Christianity and indeed all Monotheistic religions, and yet even I see some value in what the OP wrote.
How about you do something similar? Instead of writing self-serving nonsense, maybe tell me what value I have to gain from engaging in performative rhetoric against a crazed and fanatic audience who really only care about what happens to their immortal soul after death. Or do you not have the intellectual capacity to make a single well-reasoned counter-point?
A case in point being [from my possibly wrong point of view] the pre-Christian Romans whose list of principal virtues included: Dignitas, Severitas, & Gravitas, very roughly translated: Dignity, Sternness, and Self-Importance.
The OP's views on this particular topic are held by most serious historians of Early Europe. And yet, you lazily jumped into attacking his [presumed] religion instead of calmly stating your reasons why his views are wrong (if your mental capability is enough for you to formulate any such reason, a possibility I strongly doubt).
Within the specific context of the modern secularized world appropriating some of the more compassionate traits of Christianity (namely an appreciation for Humility, Care for the Weak, and a concern for the welfare of others even if they are not members of one's tribe/nationality, etc), I agree with the OP's viewpoint even if I do have some personal antipathy (which I mostly keep to myself) towards Monotheistic religious systems due to the rigid intolerance they tend to breed.
And since I am obviously not against any of the specific points the OP wrote on, what exactly would I be writing the counter-point to?
> why his views are wrong
So did you never get the basic lesson in the difference between fact vs opinion or are you just too dense to understand that what he stated was an opinion and therefore can't rightly be labeled "right" or "wrong"? which is why I've been couching my responses in the language of philosophy and epistemology, or can you not read in between those particular lines?
> what exactly would I be writing the counter-point to?
Me, you fucking idiot.
---
how about next time you step away from the insults? I've included them to show you what you look like to others. It doesn't do your writing any favors and it obviously doesn't increase your capacity to come to a common understanding with your fellow man.
Do better.
Clearly you have never argued with Hindu or Muslim apologists.
There is no such thing as a monolithic “Ancient thought” — this is a boogeyman created by Christian apologists.
edit: Is that your site? You’ve put a lot of work in.