The Reformation began in the 16th century. A lot happened before then. For example, the massacre of the Cathars in 1209 in Beziers, where the papal legate when asked how to distinguish Cathars from others famously replied (to the glory of God, of course) "Kill them all. God will know his own."

Hmm. That's terrible.

I could spend hours, days, weeks trying to explain. In fact, I have done so for years. But when someone doesn't read what is on the page and instead injects his own projections, there's just no point in trying to discuss anything. — baker

That is beautifully said, and it is not restricted to religious differences. It would be wonderful if all replies were about the subject and not the person who wrote the reply. :lol:

While reading the arguments, my mind drifted to the videos I have been watching about humans surviving an ice age and the flooding that followed. One might think if humans recorded their history, they might have said something about surviving an ice age. Humans evolved in Africa long before the ice age, and the story of them surviving the climate change from extremely hot to extremely cold and then moderate temperatures is fascinating. The story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden doesn't even come close to the real human experience.

In the past, it might have been understandable for humans to believe their different creation stories, but continuing to do so with our greatly improved understanding of reality makes the continued success of past religions a curious question. How can people maintain a false belief when the evidence gives us such a different story of our creation and amazing survival? :worry: We are supposed to be rational, but to continue to believe a false story of creation when the evidence is so different is an extremely strange human behavior. I eagerly wait for an explanation of that. And what is really nuts about this is how easily they see all the other stories as false. It is only their own creation story that isn't based on superstition. :roll:

Of course. They've even killed eachother over who has the right understanding of God. — baker

I am sure Constantine regretted making Christianity an acceptable religion when the Christians began killing each other. The disagreement about Jesus being the son of God or God himself led to a lot of killing, and then the argument over baptism led to more killing for a long time.

This might be blunt, but the success of Christianity is about winning by killing. Another successful move for Christians is reinterpreting people's beliefs and celebrations to be Christian stories. So the Easter Bunny and Easter Egg, Egyptian symbols of fertiality becoming a Christian holy day. The Tree of Life, a pagan tree, becomes the Christian Tree of Life. I think only the Jehovah's Witnesses acknowledge the pagan history of these celebrations.

Imagine celebrating your favorite pagan days and discovering you are a Christian. :gasp:

Everyone: I don’t understand why you are offering me a false dichotomy for resolution, outside the context in which I explained my position? — Astorre

What false dichotomy?

I've known Christians who said God was "lovingly condemning". Apparently, it is an act of "love" when God sends people off to eternal torment.
Or when the Holy Inquisition condemned people to be burned at the stake: surely the inquisitors considered this an act of "love", no?

One thing I've learned (and the hard way, at that) is that religious/spiritual people tend to have vastly different ideas than I about what constitutes "good" and "bad", "love" and "hate", and so on. To the point like we're from different universes, hence my question to you earlier.

I must confess I'm unimpressed by explanations of Christianity's success which are variations of DEUS VULT! — Ciceronianus

Someone who claims to believe in God but doesn't base his explanations in claims of God's will, is not a proper theist, so beware of such a person!

It's common for theistic apologists to present quasi-rational and quasi-scientific reasoning for theism (and they'll even say they do it for you, to appease the atheist/the atheist's ego (sic!)). But according to theism itself, such apologists are wrong, for they are not acknowledging God's place.

If they really believe in God, they should have no qualms stating that such and such is God's will. And if there's reason to bellieve they do have such qualms (as mentioned above) then they're not to be taken seriously in a discussion.

, or which are based on claims regarding the workings of the Holy Spirit, or Christianity's preaching regarding love, justice etc. which is, I think it must be acknowledged given our history,

more honored in the breach than in the observance.

This is hardly limited to Christians, though.

Just look at this forum, for example. There are, for example, some prominent posters here who are vocal proponents of charity, humanism, and liberalism. And yet from the way they treat other posters here it's clear that they themselves don't practice what they preach. And what is more, they and their defenders take umbrage at being reminded of that. Apparently, it's somehow beyond the pale to point out that the preacher doesn't practice what he preaches.

Perhaps this points at something more fundamental about humanity: Namely, that moral claims are not supposed to be taken seriously. That it's important to talk the talk -- but that this is all there is to it. The walk is supposed to be quite different than the talk.