I am not dodging bullets, I am admitting the limitations on my own knowledge on the subject and telling you that others can answer your questions better, but if you are unwilling to look at them, what credence should I give anything you're saying? My conversation with you has been nothing but misinformation from your own hands and, as I usually expect when conversing with anybody as hardened and unwilling to do their own research as you are, an attempt to put words into my mouth and somehow champion on yourself on having me admit I don't know everything--which I could have told you beforehand.

In fact, at no point in our conversation did I even reveal a single thing about what denomination--if any, I subscribe to. Yet, as soon as I call for some sort of reasoned inquiry by people into how scripture and religious doctrine is in interpreted by people who subscribe to the faith I am immediately told that I am living an illusion, and my assumed beliefs are completely false.

There is a vigour and fearfulness with which you talk about this; an unwillingness to further seek answers which I think is not doing anything a lick of justice--not because I think you will change your mind if you do, but that I am telling you that scholars have answered these questions. There has been 2000 years of scholarship, philosophy and theology worked out and argued. There are many people, pastors/priests/whatever they are called who are simply not educated on the matter.

I know all of the arguments pertaining to "Other gods" and, "pagan philosophy," and their relation to Christian theology/philosophy and what I am at least suggesting to you is that these issues and questions have been dealt with. Not just by uneducated pastors but both by ancient theologians and philosophers and academics and scholars in the modern era who are both respected and trusted in their fields. The discussions and arguments have been ongoing since the earliest writers and critics, and if you are willing to ignore that history or suggest it unworthy simply because you had some bad experiences growing up, or now do not believe then you are completely mad.

I make no claims that religious leaders can interpret it correctly, in fact, within their own context most of them (Should) admit that man's interpretation and understanding of scripture and more generally, of God, can never be wholly complete (Read: Platonic philosophy). What I do claim though, and will stick to because I know it to be true, and study it daily is that there are answers to everything you have brought up. And again I reiterate, just because some priest or pastor you have met has not been able to answer your questions does not mean they cannot be answered.

I am sorry that you have had such a tough upbringing in relation to many aspects of the church and of its followers. I too have grown up around them, but clearly my experiences have not been as unpleasant. I researched what I have, and have gone on study what I do because it interests me. Because, like you the explanations given to me by whatever religious figure I spoke to were not sufficient but knew that I could find answers as to why these people believe the way they do. I did find that, and I found it in the actual philosophical tradition that is at the very base of Christianity. Actual philosophers and theologians, who the academic world takes very seriously, who answered the questions of people just like you in their own time. Not everybody studies it, nor has the chance to and I know exactly how frustrating it can be to engage with people who cannot answer your questions sufficiently while still extolling the virtues of what they believe, or are so polemical in their belief that no other alternative can even be considered--it can be simply infuriating.

If there wasn't a studyable history and progression of philosophical and theological thought through the 2000 years people have been practicing this particular religion then why is it taken up so seriously in every humanities program in every secular university with an arts program?

My plea in the original post was simply to implore people to understand what they are arguing against before they do it. Unsupportable quotes and claims, and sentences drawn out of context do not hold water as a proper argument.

I am not taking this any further (and if you want to further throw accusations of dodging bullets, feel free) because I don't think there is much more to be said.

But, thank you. I don't often get to discuss these things quite like this.