I'll try and keep this short.
I have not missed the point. I never denied the history behind it. But people are responsible for those things. Not my religion. If someone kills in the name of PHeMoX it's probably not your fault. If someone kills in the name of money, or love (as is often the case), it's not the fault of money or love. Perhaps you can say otherwise if texts that are particularly important to a religion condone or encourage such actions, but they don't!
If you want to take this discussion seriously, please don't just skim over what I've written and fill in the gaps with your imagination. I was very clear that I'm not arguing that he must exist. I'm saying you have no grounds to say he cannot exist.I was not saying the spaghetti tastes bad -- colour has nothing to do with taste. That's the point. Weight has nothing to do with God's ability to lift it, as he isn't a physical being under the restrictions of physical laws (that's logical, not only from the idea that he creates something out of nothing, but also the idea that he was the first cause, and is thus not bound by the constraints of cause and effect).
Organisations as a whole have defined history for as long as history has been recorded. Like I said before, the reliability of current Bible translations can be discussed elsewhere. Neither of us have enough understanding of the Greek of New Testament times to discuss this point. However, in some denominations it is a requirement for Ministers to learn to read the Ancient Hebrew and Greek languages used in the oldest manuscripts of the Old and New Testament. As much as it is arguable that we perhaps don't have access to the letters and books of the New Testament as they were when they were written, I'm sure it isn't hard to believe that modern translations are consistent enough with the Bible as it was during the crusades."Local" is too strong a word -- my family are from South Africa, and I've moved around Australia, Fiji, and now live in Canada where I've been to two different churches so far. And again, I have never attempted to justify wrong-doings done in God's name, Christianity's name, or even by Christian organizations.
Again, doing something on behalf of another system doesn't make that system culpable. I have no issue with your problems with "organised religion", but your vision of Christianity is skewed by (yes, I say it again) a specific subset of Christianity. I don't care how much you scoff at such a description. Such a reaction is indicative of how little you are actually considering what I'm saying. Even that specific subset, which has many things I disagree with, is not responsible for these bad things: it's the weaknesses of the system (a monarchic system with a human head; a system which places too much power over people in the hands of a few -- a weakness that we specifically moved away from during the Reformation).
Again, don't put words in my mouth, please. I'm not saying you can't have a dislike for something, but to say authoritatively that it is all bad when you don't understand of significant parts of it is wrong. Admittedly, I was vague with my analogy.

Jibb