Historical examples are no sure demonstration of the inherent characteristics of a culture, especially when the argument goes something like the following: Christians have persecuted polytheists consistently over the centuries; literal statements in the Bible encourage hatred against polytheists; ergo, Christian persecution of polytheists is promoted by the Bible.

There are two problems here:

1. You read these statements outside of the larger context, as do many who have called themselves and do call themselves Christians.
2. A similar case could be made for polytheist mythologies which were foundational for the formation of individuals in the cultures to which they belonged, e.g. the Romans and Greeks. If one were to read, say, the Iliad literally, one could get the idea that one’s hubris is caused by the Gods (which at least Agamemnon literally says). Then, one could very easily get the idea that there is no personal responsibility for one’s actions. What about reading Greek myths literally – well, you can see my point I think – one could get the notion, taking Zeus as a model, that rape is OK, especially for those with social roles which involve civic power. Following the causality which you ascribe to Christianity, then one would expect a great deal of these nasty things to be committed (with approval) by Greek and Roman polytheists. (Admittedly, I cannot comment on Germanic, druidic and other such forms of polytheism). I will leave it to you to determine whether Greeks and Romans were guilty of using their religion to justify these things. If you say yes, then you have a problem, since you will be agreeing that polytheisms inherently condone certain atrocities other than intolerance; if you say no, then you have to consider why the case for Greeks and Romans differs from that of Christians, when literal readings of cultural literature for both groups seem to encourage questionable behaviours. Your historical argument makes a direct causal relation and takes into account no other possible factors (also historical) for the historical behaviour of Christians.

Consider this: Christ, so far as even a literal reading of the New Testament goes, did not coerce anyone into believing in him or the God who sent him and did not tell his apostles to do so – and by all accounts, those communities who welcomed the apostles did so willingly. All of this is simply from a literal reading (while not denying the statements against polytheism). This is not the all-out call for persecution that you suggest and which many who call themselves Christians see as well.

This distinction by “cosmotheism” excludes a whole shared tradition of profound reflections on the cosmos on both the side of polytheism and of monotheism. Read any of the later Platonists and Aristotelians, whether Greek, Christian, Islamic, Hebrew, Renaissance pagan and so on (and some would argue Plato and Aristotle as well). Then read some of the scholarly literature from the past 20-30 years on this tradition. You will see that what “cosmotheism” describes is only half of the story – and the lesser half at that.

Aside from that, I don’t think that my reference to Hindu treatment of the Chandala was vague – in fact, this information is easily enough found even on the internet I am sure. Look it up – intolerance of a particular segment of Hindu society inscribed in a polytheistic religion. Very clear.

But I guess you have got me nailed down. I haven’t spent thirty years in hatred of a tradition, trying find all the details about Christian atrocities in service of an ideology. Unfortunately, I do not have lists of references at my fingertips.

But let me suggest this: If polytheists don’t commit atrocities now (except that group of Hellenic revivalists in Greece who threaten violence against Christians I suppose), that’s only for lack of opportunity. I did not say that polytheism is ontolerant (you seem incapable of grasping tenses and subjunctives). However, give polytheism authority and the opportunity for cultural intolerance may well arise. You argue that polytheism has acted as a translator of culture and I don’t disagree; indeed, I am in full agreement. What irks me is your refusal to consider that there is possibility for grave intolerance within polytheism as there is with any cultural group just as there is potential for wide-ranging tolerance in Christianity. You say that there is hate in Christian scripture – and there could well be in a literal reading. But one need not read things so literally – one can read with intelligence and nuance and it has been done.

As for your assertion that Christianity adds nothing – in fact it does provide things that other religions don’t, just as other religions provide things that Christianity doesn’t – and in saying this, I indicate no value judgment at all. I am simply recognizing cultural particularities. Again, if you studied the possibilities inherent in other religions half as well as you study your own…