Lets see.
Literacy
Universal education
Care for the poor and sick
Dissolution of the slave trade
Equality under the law
These are just off of the top of my head.
Hard work
Discipline
The value of family
Help your neighbors
I’d say it is.
There is no evidence that the absence of The Bible would have blocked some other revolution(s) from taking place, and there is no evidence that the appearance of The Bible has made this world a better place-We only have this world to look at.
We do actually in cooperative history and development of Christian and non Christian governments.
Comparative ^
Define “better place”?
But on the whole, I do think that modern morality comes more from Humanism than it does from Christianity. Countries which got Christianity without getting Humanism are comparatively worse off for it. And while one could argue that Christian morality (e.g., the Golden Rule) fed into Humanistic morality, I would probably say that it’s more likely that Christian texts provided an early “language” in which to hold such conversations, and so may have influenced some of the vocabulary used, but on the whole Humanism was just a product of improved mechanisms (paper, the printing press, etc.) for intellectuals to swap around ideas and call each other out on things that didn’t pass muster.
I understand that you’re trying to insult my intelligence, jack. Not mad cool, sir.
The vast majority of liberal ideas are based in empathy, reason, and economic/social pragmatism. Of these, precisely none of them were invented by Christianity. Does this mean Christians can’t be empathetic, reasoning, or pragmatic? Certainly not! And it’s a certain fact that at least some of the major movers and shakers in liberal history identified as Christian. But honestly I find it as easy to believe that they acted like reasonable, empathetic, pragmatic people in spite of Christianity as to believe they acted that way because of it.
Literacy and universal education were fought for by Martin Luther. Humanist ideals are set out there by Jesus. Why didn’t humanism rise up in any non Christian country?
Liberal and liberal are two different things.
“Christian governments”, huh? I’m vaguely curious which governments you’re including in that. Surely some of Rome’s later history, enough of England’s history to include the crusades and the inquisitors, and Vatican City for its entire run. Beyond that, I’m not sure. (Certainly not America - though I suppose you could argue that the McCarthy era bordered on it.)
English’s capitalism rules make this sentence hilarious. Perhaps it would have been better to put the capitalized one second? 
Also, nobody gives a flying fart about the movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity , which according to merriam-webster, is probably what you’re talking about. We’re talking about the wide political/social movement that likes listening to science, disputing man’s dominion over the earth, and giving women the priesthood.
Civilizations that developed including Christianity. Civilizations that were able to evolve into more humans classically liberal http://www.chegg.com/homework-help/definitions/classical-liberalism-53 places. Not all could do this. But no civilization that wasn’t Christian was able to evolve along similar lines.
“Including” christianity? I dispute that even has meaning.
Also, on the subject of classical liberalism:
Based on some brief googling, it appears that Adam Smith was perhaps a deist but probably not a christian, and christianity certainly was not built into his work.
Your premise falls apart from the get-go.
Which Humanist ideals are set out by Jesus? Humanism follows from the concept that all people are, to the best of our knowledge, equal. Jesus doesn’t preach equality and religion provides one of the largest rationales for exceptionalism.
You have to overcome local religious beliefs first, usually. Local governments generally don’t approve of that since they use religious beliefs as a foundation for their exceptional status.
Europe, I would suggest, had an interesting setup that allowed for it to take the ideas from the Islamic Golden Age and continue the chains of thought through not just the Renaissance, but all of the way into the Enlightenment. The ability for Christians to borrow money at interest from Jews and for Jews to borrow money at interest from Christians allowed for people to raise capital to create profit-making ventures. The Church’s interests were not tied to any one country and the interests of each country were slightly divergent from that of the Church. While the different Kings each served with the blessing of the Pope, they also recognized that the Pope was a rival, foreign influence, not just a pawn that served as a useful rational for why the nobility were better than everyone else.
Overall, the laxness of religious authority allowed mercantilism to rise, allowing for greater commerce and invention to flourish. Similarly, it allowed for people to trade around ideas that were more “heretical”. Philosophy wasn’t as constrained to the local Orthodox Tradition as it might have been in other places. Where rising Humanism caused the rise of Fundamentalism in Islamic territories - ending the Islamic Golden Age - it was able to keep alive in Europe and persist on through to modern day.
The Sermon on the Mount is actually reasonably humanist, in that it says, “Be good to each other.” It doesn’t invoke a lot of heaven or hell, but talks about brotherhood, forgiveness, and good behavior.
Sorry, the fact that a book is full of ambiguities and contradictions does not put it on a par with quantum theory.
Even if you can weasel your way around Jesus saying not an iota of the Law would be invalid until heaven and earth passed away, even if you don’t feel bound (which I realize is a mainstream Christian position, and one of many reasons I have so little respect for mainstream Christian theology), it should concern you.
Whether or not it binds you, it tells you what God wants. Some of the laws are ceremonial or ritualistic, but many deal with morality. So if you believe in absolute morality, you believe in Mosaic Law as an ideal, whether or not it binds you, and whether or not it is enshrined in secular law.
So if you believe in the God of the Bible, you should believe that, whether or not it’s on the books, there should be a law that women who cannot prove their virginity on their wedding night should be stoned, and that homosexual acts should be capital crimes. You certainly should vote for politicians who promise to work to enact such laws.
I agree that Jesus could have done more good by endorsing hand washing than all the alleged good he’s done with his maunderings that even most Christians ignore, but he was not refuting a Jewish law. Handwashing is not a Mosaic law, it was merely a tradition.
People sometimes claim the Jewish dietary laws show supernatural wisdom because you can get worms from pork, but imagine how many lives would have been saved if instead of nitpicking laws about diet, or priest’s underwear, the Torah had included an admonition to wash your hands when preparing food or treating the sick, injured, or pregnant.
So did Roman slaves. And the Bible absolutely endorsed chattel slavery:
Leviticus 25, KJV:
"45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
So you couldn’t make chattel slaves of your fellow Hebrews, but no problemo doing it for foreigners. Once you bought them, they were your slaves forever, and if you died, your children inherited them.
Well, not quite universal.
"In the first ten sections of the treatise, Luther expounds, at considerable length, upon his views concerning Jews and Judaism and how these compare to Christians and Christianity. Following the exposition, Section XI of the treatise advises Christians to carry out seven remedial actions. These are
to burn down Jewish synagogues and schools and warn people against them;
to refuse to let Jews own houses among Christians;
for Jewish religious writings to be taken away;
for rabbis to be forbidden to preach;
to offer no protection to Jews on highways;
for usury to be prohibited and for all silver and gold to be removed, put aside for safekeeping, and given back to Jews who truly convert; and
to give young, strong Jews flail, axe, spade, and spindle, and let them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow.[9]"