I just changed this passage because it didn't accurately convey everything I was trying to express:
Another decentralized religion that rose in opposition to the Roman aristocracy was the earliest phase of Christianity. The militant pacifism of Jesus existed in striking contrast to both the imperialistic virtues of Rome and the genocidal mandates of Jehovah. These ideas should not be interpreted as a passive acquiescence to injustice but instead as an act of moral force, whereby those who had been compelled to obedience through a societal paradigm which recognized strength as the only law took on a new role by leading and transforming the nature of their communities. Some of the first Christians were female priests who led congregations in private homes, a practice that directly opposed the values of Roman society which saw women as primarily breeding stock. In Mathew 5:9, Jesus said “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Taken from the the context of a time period defined by war, slavery and gross social injustice, this statement is profoundly transgressive in a sense that is difficult to appreciate coming from the perspective of a modern person living in a democratic society. Where "survival of the fittest" is the rule of the law, women and children will necessarily take on a subordinate role sheerly by virtue of their lesser physical strength alone. This principle also applies to indigenous communities which obviously have not had the military strength to defend themselves against centralized nation states even when unavoidable attempts at self defense have been made. Unfortunately, the philosophy of early Christians that "the meek will inherit the earth" was later horribly corrupted as the Christian Church went on to murder and enslave countless numbers of indigenous communities while enshrining social inequity as the mandate of God himself. more:
